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:	Tue, 10 May 2011 00:28:22 +0800
From:	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
To:	"Amir G." <amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ext4: move ext4_add_groupblocks() to mballoc.c

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Amir G.
<amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> 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.

Fixed.   You can send snapshot patches out.
>
>
>
>>                                                - Ted
>>
>



-- 
Best Wishes
Yongqiang Yang
--
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