linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ext4: pass allocation_request struct to ext4_(alloc,splice)

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:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 18:25:52 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ext4: pass allocation_request struct to
 ext4_(alloc,splice)_branch

On Tue 02-09-14 18:05:47, Ted Tso wrote:
> Instead of initializing the allocation_request structure in
> ext4_alloc_branch(), set it up in ext4_ind_map_blocks(), and then pass
> it to ext4_alloc_branch() and ext4_splice_branch().
> 
> This allows ext4_ind_map_blocks to pass flags in the allocation
> request structure without having to add Yet Another argument to
> ext4_alloc_branch().
  The patch looks good. You can add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>

BTW:
> -			goal = new_blocks[i] = ext4_new_meta_blocks(handle, inode,
> -							goal, 0, NULL, &err);
> +			ar->goal = new_blocks[i] = ext4_new_meta_blocks(handle,
> +				    ar->inode, ar->goal, 0, NULL, &err);
  This seems to suggest ext4_new_meta_blocks() would be better off by
taking allocation_request argument as well?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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