linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 12/13] xfs: remove a stale comment from xfs_file_aio_write

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:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 10:15:22 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] xfs: remove a stale comment from
 xfs_file_aio_write_checks()

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 04:54:51PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> 
> The comment in xfs_file_aio_write_checks() about calling file_modified()
> after dropping the ilock doesn't make sense, because the code that
> unconditionally acquires and drops the ilock was removed by
> commit 467f78992a07 ("xfs: reduce ilock hold times in
> xfs_file_aio_write_checks").
> 
> Remove this outdated comment.

Yes, this looks good, I actually have the removal included in a WIP
patch as well, but splitting it out like this look good to me:

Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>