linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ext4: move ext4_add

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:	Mon, 9 May 2011 19:01:21 +0300
From:	"Amir G." <amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ext4: move ext4_add_groupblocks() to mballoc.c

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 06:58:09PM +0200, amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net wrote:
>> From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...rs.sf.net>
>>
>> In preparation for the next patch, the function ext4_add_groupblocks()
>> is moved to mballoc.c, where it could use some static functions.
>>
>> I also fixed a checkpatch warning and replaced obsolete get_undo_access
>> for bitmap with get_write_access.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...rs.sf.net>
>
> Please don't move code and make changes in one patch.  #1, it's hard
> to review changes that happened in the middle of code movement.  #2,
> if there has been any changes in the source function caused by other
> patches, I can't regenerate a patch by simply redoing the function
> move --- I have to reverse engineer the change that happened under the
> cover of code movement, regnerate the patch, and then redo the change.
>

Sorry for the trouble. At least I (sort of) documented the change in the commit
description, so I hope it wasn't too hard to reverse engineer...
Fixing the checkpatch error I just kind of felt obligated to do, changing
get_undo_access to get_write_access in this patch was just me being lazy.

> I've split this into two patches, one which is just a simple code
> movement (note that I also moved the function declaration in ext4.h so
> it function is listed under the correct .c file), and the second which
> changed the use of ext4_journal_get_undo_access to
> ext4_journal_get_write_access.  Since this was also the last use of
> ext4_journal_get_undo_access(), I also removed the now-unneeded code
> in ext4_jbd2.[ch].
>

Thanks. FYI, in one of the snapshot patches this get_write_access instance is
replaced with get_bitmap_access (which calls a different snapshot hook).
That patch also removes the get_undo_access function, but now you beat
me to it :-)

FYI2, the snapshot patches are waiting in my outbox for me to push send.
When running xfstests I caught a hang in test 225 with 1K blocksize
(all other tests were fine),
so I asked Yongqiang to take a look at it because his patch (6d9c85) had fixed
a problem in test 225. He just said that the hang was caused by a bug
in his patch
and that the hang happen with tytso/master branch and that he is
working on a fix,
so I may just go a head and send out the snapshot patches anyway.

>                                                - Ted
>
--
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