Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(354)

Issue 6721017: verity: short circuit once you hit a verified node (Closed)

Created:
9 years, 9 months ago by Mandeep Singh Baines
Modified:
9 years, 7 months ago
Reviewers:
Paul T
CC:
chromium-os-reviews_chromium.org
Visibility:
Public.

Description

verity: short circuit once you hit a verified node Since we set the VERIFIED bits top-down we can short circuit once we hit a VERIFIED node. BUG=9752 TEST=Ran tests in verity.git. Ran platform_DMVerityCorruption on H/W. Signed-off-by: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>; kernel.git Review URL: http://codereview.chromium.org/6670008 TBRing because code has already been LGTMed and committed to kernel.git. Change-Id: Ib8fe833668a62bdc21946e2b274f970b0955cd8c TBR=wad@chromium.org,taysom@chromium.org,ups@chromium.org Committed: http://chrome-svn/viewvc/chromeos?view=rev&revision=f9d2bfb

Patch Set 1 #

Total comments: 1
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+10 lines, -6 lines) Patch
M dm-bht.c View 2 chunks +10 lines, -6 lines 1 comment Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)
Mandeep Singh Baines
9 years, 9 months ago (2011-03-23 01:12:10 UTC) #1
Paul T
LGTM http://codereview.chromium.org/6721017/diff/1/dm-bht.c File dm-bht.c (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/6721017/diff/1/dm-bht.c#newcode694 dm-bht.c:694: /* TODO(msb,wad): would be nice to avoid two ...
9 years, 9 months ago (2011-03-23 17:19:28 UTC) #2
Mandeep Singh Baines
9 years, 9 months ago (2011-03-23 20:12:33 UTC) #3
On 2011/03/23 17:19:28, Paul T wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6721017/diff/1/dm-bht.c
> File dm-bht.c (right):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6721017/diff/1/dm-bht.c#newcode694
> dm-bht.c:694: /* TODO(msb,wad): would be nice to avoid two atomic reads */
> I'd like to understand this comment better. From what I understand, atomic
read
> is just a volatile read. So once the value is in cache, the second read should
> be fast or is something else going on?

You're correct. The purpose was more for code cleanup than for performance. Will
pointed out a simple way of only reading the state in one place. Since
implemented and committed.

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698