linux-ext4 - Re: Do we really need parallel resizer?

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:	Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:17:49 +0800
From:	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>
To:	adilger@...ger.ca
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Do we really need parallel resizer?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> I noticed that resize is protected by resize_lock.  Then parallel
> resizer works.  However, I think there is no need to make parallel
> resizer work.
>
> I think we can use an atomic integer 'resize_flag' instead of
> resize_lock,  resize_flag is set to 1 before the kernel does resizing
> work,  while resize_flag is set to 0 after the kernel finishes
> resizing work.  Resizing is allowed only if resize_flag is 0.  If
> resize_flag is 1, kernel returns -EBUSY to userspace.
Sorry, I made an error.  we should use an integer protected by resize_lock.

Yongqiang.
>
> What about your opinion?
>
> Yongqiang.
>
> --
> Best Wishes
> Yongqiang Yang
>



-- 
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