| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:00:57 +0000 From: Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org> To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> Cc: akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ensure unique i_ino in filesystems without permanent inode numbers (introduction) On Fri, 15 December 2006 08:05:24 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > Jeff Layton wrote: > > Apologies for the long email, but I couldn't come up with a way to explain > > this in fewer words. Many filesystems that are part of the linux kernel > > have problems with how they have assign out i_ino values: > > > > If there are no further comments/suggestions on this patchset, I'd like to > ask Andrew to add it to -mm soon and target getting it rolled into 2.6.21. I'm still unsure whether idr has a sufficient advantage over simply hashing the inodes. Hch has suggested that keeping the hashtable smaller is good for performance. But idr adds new complexity, which should be avoided on its own right. So is the performance benefit big enough to add more complexity? Is it even measurable? Jörn -- Fancy algorithms are buggier than simple ones, and they're much harder to implement. Use simple algorithms as well as simple data structures. -- Rob Pike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists