linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/4] ext4: clone indirect.c file from inode.c

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:	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:02:45 +0300
From:	"Amir G." <amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ext4: clone indirect.c file from inode.c

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:39:27PM +0300, amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net wrote:
>> From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...rs.sf.net>
>>
>> The next patch is going to move ext4_ind_ functions to
>> indirect.c. First, we clone the file from inode.c and
>> only leave code that is going to be duplicated in both files.
>> This should keep the deleted lines count from inode.c in the next
>> patch the same as the added lines count to indirect.c.
>
> I really dislike cloning functions.  This becomes a maintenance
> headache, since bugs that get fixed in one file might not get
> propagated to another.  Since I need to manually move all of the
> functions to verify nothing else changed in patches that do massive
> code movement, I used the first two patches in your patch series, but
> replaced the last two patches in the patch series, and replaced it
> with the following:
>
> A) Move __ext4_check_blockref() to fs/ext4/block_validity.c and
> declare it extern.
>
> B) Move ext4_truncate_failed_write() and blocks_for_truncate() to a
> new function, fs/ext4/truncate.h.

Nice cleanups!

>
> C) Movement of indirect-related code to fs/ext4/indirect.c.
>

Hmm.. in my patch the deleted lines from inode.c matched
the added lines in indirect.c (-1 newline at end of file).
Your patch has:
 fs/ext4/indirect.c       | 1510 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 fs/ext4/inode.c          | 1486 ---------------------------------------------

This accounts for 28 lines added by header comment and includes in indirect.c
-1 newline at end of file, so where did 3 more lines go?
I am guessing these are just deleted newlines, but have no way of knowing.
Have you made other (maybe checkpatch) changes while moving or just
removed 'static'
from function declarations?
I am asking just in case I get 'git blamed' for it some day ;-)

Cheers,
Amir.
--
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