linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ext4: use correct criteria name instead stale integer number in comment

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: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 23:43:52 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz, ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com,
	ritesh.list@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] ext4: use correct criteria name instead stale
 integer number in comment

On Tue 23-04-24 20:40:45, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> Use correct criteria name instead stale integer number in comment
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>

You have cleaned up the superfluous "CR=" bits in several places but still
left them is couple more :). See below:

> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 5acf413808a2..71b2f9a18875 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -1131,8 +1131,9 @@ static void ext4_mb_choose_next_group(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>  		ext4_mb_choose_next_group_best_avail(ac, new_cr, group);
>  	} else {
>  		/*
> -		 * TODO: For CR=2, we can arrange groups in an rb tree sorted by
> -		 * bb_free. But until that happens, we should never come here.
> +		 * TODO: For CR=CR_GOAL_LEN_SLOW, we can arrange groups in an
			     ^^^ Still you have left these superfluous
"CR=" bits here.
 
> +		 * rb tree sorted by bb_free. But until that happens, we should
> +		 * never come here.
>  		 */
>  		WARN_ON(1);
>  	}
> @@ -3445,10 +3446,11 @@ static int ext4_mb_init_backend(struct super_block *sb)
>  	}
>  	if (sbi->s_mb_prefetch > ext4_get_groups_count(sb))
>  		sbi->s_mb_prefetch = ext4_get_groups_count(sb);
> -	/* now many real IOs to prefetch within a single allocation at cr=0
> -	 * given cr=0 is an CPU-related optimization we shouldn't try to
> -	 * load too many groups, at some point we should start to use what
> -	 * we've got in memory.
> +	/*
> +	 * now many real IOs to prefetch within a single allocation at
> +	 * cr=CR_POWER2_ALIGNED. Given cr=CR_POWER2_ALIGNED is an CPU-related
           ^^^  and here               ^^^

> +	 * optimization we shouldn't try to load too many groups, at some point
> +	 * we should start to use what we've got in memory.
>  	 * with an average random access time 5ms, it'd take a second to get
>  	 * 200 groups (* N with flex_bg), so let's make this limit 4
>  	 */

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