linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] allocate struct ext4_allocation_context from a kmem cache to save stack space

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:39:53 -0800
From:	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
To:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocate struct ext4_allocation_context from
	a	kmem	cache to save stack space

On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 09:45 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 20:35 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Mingming Cao wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 19:06 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > >> Mingming Cao wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Do you intend to remove the #ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS, or it's a accident? I
> > >>> think we need keep that to allow ext4 build without procfs configured.
> > >>>
> > >>> Other than this, the patch looks fine to me.:)
> > >> oh, it kind of snuck in.  It actually should still build, as
> > >> remove_proc_entry is a no-op function w/o the config option.
> > > 
> > > Oh, I mean the proc_mkdir(EXT4_ROOT, proc_root_fs) will complain w/o
> > > CONFIG_PROC_FS configured.
> > > 
> > > Mingming
> > > 
> > 
> > it'll build:
> > 
> > static inline struct proc_dir_entry *proc_mkdir(const char *name,
> >         struct proc_dir_entry *parent) {return NULL;}
> > 
> > yes, it'll issue a printk though.  *shrug*
> > 
printk could be removed...so as long as it builds fine. I had looked at
the history yesterday and find this fix
http://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2007/10/10/2
so I was under impression that the ifdefs was added to fix compile
issue. I did not look more closely. Maybe that's not a issue any more.

> > I like fewer #ifdefs better than more, but doesn't matter much to me.
> 

Oh, I prefer fewer #ifdefs too.:-)

> It's strongly encouraged to avoid unnecessary ifdefs.  (Does Christoph
> read this list?)  In my opinion, the decision is whether or not to just
> remove the printk.
> 

Mingming
> Shaggy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html