linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] jbd2: fold __wait_cp_io into jbd2_log_do

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, 2 Sep 2014 13:00:01 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jbd2: fold __wait_cp_io into jbd2_log_do_checkpoint()

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 06:30:33PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   Hum, is this really such a win? Unlike __process_buffer(), this function
> is well separated so IMHO the code is better readable before the folding.

I agree it's a closer call.  I'm not wedded to folding in
__wait_cp_io.  I was reacting more to the fact that the comment right
before the call to __wait_cp_io was horribly misleading, and when I
looked to confirm what I thought __wait_cp_io() was doing, it looked
like another static function used in exactly one place that could be
folded in.

If other folks think that it's more readable w/o this patch, I'm happy
to drop it.  Anyone else have an opinion?

Cheers,

					- 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