| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20061025183656.GD9940@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:36:56 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: adilger@...sterfs.com, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Ext3 online defrag > On Oct 23, 2006 18:03 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > I would in fact go so far as to allow only a single extent to be specified > > > per call. This is to avoid the passing of any pointers as part of the > > > interface (hello ioctl police :-), and also makes the kernel code simpler. > > > I don't think the syscall/ioctl overhead is significant compared to the > > > journal and IO overhead. > > > > ...it makes it kind of > > harder to tell where indirect blocks would go - and it would be > > impossible for the defragmenter to force some unusual placement of > > indirect blocks... > > It would be possible to specify indirect block relocation in same manner > as regular block relocation I think. Allocate a new block, copy contents, > flush block from cache, fix up reference (inode, dindirect), commit. Yes, but there's a question of the interface to this operation. How to specify which indirect block I mean? Obviously we could introduce separate call for remapping indirect blocks but I find this solution kind of clumsy... Bye Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> SuSE CR Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists