linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfs: does call expand

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, 18 Nov 2009 17:22:17 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Liu Aleaxander <aleaxander@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: does call expand_files when needed

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Liu Aleaxander <aleaxander@...il.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
>>it's trivial, not so much an improvement, IMO.
> So, shouldn't we do the optimize when there is a way to do that?
>
> While, I don't think so. And BTW, it's not just a problem of
> optimization, but also make it be more sense: JUST call expand when
> need. I don't know why you are rejecting about this, especially it did
> optimized one call path(as you said), and it doesn't make the code
> uglier than before but making it be more sense, and, in fact, a kind
> of more readable.


I am not rejecting it, I said this is trivial, so accepting it or droping
it both are OK for me.

I don't think the orignal code is ugly, '< fdt->max_fds' is not checked
for expand_files(), but for find_next_zero_bit().
--
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/