Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 21:52:57 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Fennema <bfennema@...con.csc.calpoly.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDF: check for allocated memory for inode data

[Jan Kara - Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:38:52PM +0200]
| > [Christoph Hellwig - Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:01:26PM +0100]
| > | On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:09:20PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > | > | > | And please get rid of the UDF_I_* macro for everything you touch, just
| > | > | > | put a
| > | > | > | 
| > | > | > | 	struct udf_inode_info *uip = UDF_I(inode);
| > | > | > | 
| > | > | > | at the beginning of the function and use the fields directly.
| > | > | > | 
| > | > | > 
| > | > | > Actually to properly remove UDF_I* and UDF_SB_* macroses in the
| > | > | > whole UDF subsystem - is _lot_ of work. I'm going to make it but
| > | > | > not now (too busy).
| > | > | 
| > | > | Doing it completely is a lot of work, yes.  I was more thinking of
| > | > | converting a piece of code once you do major changes.  But if you
| > | > | want to convert all the code as a separate patch I'm more than happy
| > | > | aswell.
| > | > | 
| > | > 
| > | > Christoph, my only argue against getting rid of UDF_I_* macro in
| > | > my patch is UDF coding style, I don't want to damage it. I think
| > | > we may leave it as is (including my patch). So just review the patch
| > | > I sent (second version) and Ack it then so Andrew could include it
| > | > into mm tree. Meantime I'm rewritting the whole UDF subsystem to
| > | > get rid of that macroses (it will be a long way ;)
| > | 
| > | The UDF style is horrible and very unlike other kernel code.  Given
| > | that udf has been pretty much unmtained for a while there should be
| > | nothing in the way of fixing it.
| > | 
| > | Anyway, the patch is technically correct so you'll get my ACK (not
| > | that you should need it).
| > | 
| > 
| > you know I've read UDF sources. As I understand all UDF_I_ macroses
| > could be converted without breaking UDF state but... as you exactly
| > mentoined it's style is horrible and I'm thinking about rewritting the
| > whole UDF system. Unfortunelly I'm not _mature_ kernel developer (I'm kernel
| > newbie) and it could take a long time for this (I think something like
| > ~ 3 month or more ;). Actually I'm ready to spend my free time for
| > this. So how do you think could it be reasonable?
|   I've spent some time hunting bugs in UDF recently so I'll warn you a
| bit :). Definitely rewriting that ... code would be a good thing to do
| (reading that code I had urges to do it several times). The hard thing
| is that there is no reasonable spec you could use - there are two
| documents which define how UDF should look like but they are really hard
| to read (they have like hundred pages each and one does not make sence
| without the other). And reading the code and learning how the filesystem is
| supposed to work isn't too helpful either. Just a friendly warning ;)
| 
| 								Honza
| -- 
| Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
| SuSE CR Labs
| 

I've that documants even printed ;) Actually they are _very-very_ big
indeed. I don't know may be just try to bring this code into Linux
codying style?

		Cyrill

-
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