linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] update ext4-nanosecond-patch comments

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]

Message-ID: <465BE1CF.2040304@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2007 13:48:23 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Kalpak Shah <kalpak@...sterfs.com>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update ext4-nanosecond-patch comments



Kalpak Shah wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 11:18 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Also can we have a description of why s_{min, want}_extra_isize
>> fields are added in the commit message ?
> 
> The i_extra_isize for each inode should ideally be s_want_extra_isize
> after inode expansion. If expansion by s_want_extra_isize is not
> possible, then i_extra_isize must be atleast s_min_extra_isize.
> 
>

My point was that the commit message of ext4-nanosecond-patch should 
explain the usage scenario for these variables. We may want to move the
commit message of ext4_expand_inode_extra_isize.patch reworded to this.


BTW i also think that adding s_{min, want}_extra_isize can be a separate 
patch altogether.


-aneesh
-
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