linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/3] libext2fs: ext2fs_node

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 17 May 2008 18:21:14 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] libext2fs: ext2fs_node_split

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:17:42PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> When called for a given handle, this function  will split the
>> current node such that half of the node's entries will be moved
>> to a new tree block.  The parent will then be updated to point
>> to the (now smaller) original node as well as the new node.
> 
> This patch looks good.  One minor nit; if you're going to define new
> functions which are intended to be exported, then they need to be
> defined in the ext2fs.h header file --- otherwise, it should be
> declared static, to prevent function leakage.  Should
> ext2fs_node_split() be exported?  There doesn't seem to be any reason
> *not* to export it, but at the same time, there doesn't seem to be a
> good reason to export, either.
> 
> I'd tend to keep it static for now; what do other people think?

I'd say static until needed otherwise...

an  _extent_split might be more useful for a public interface;
_node_split is getting awfully low level IMHO.

-Eric
--
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