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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:58:14 -0500
From:	"Jose R. Santos" <>
Cc:	Laurent Vivier <>,
	Dave Kleikamp <>,
	Andreas Dilger <>,
	linux-ext4 <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Set JBD2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT on filesystems
 larger than 32-bit blocks (take 2).

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:46:43 -0700
Mingming Cao <> wrote:
> The better choice to me is using ext4_blocks_count() to hide the details
> of the little endian. It's fine to use s_blocks_count_hi directly, just
> to make it clear, this is on-disk superblock data and better to do
> little endian conversion like read-in other on-disk superblock fields. 

On the grounds of avoiding confusion regarthing the use of
s_blocks_count_hi, I agree that using ext4_blocks_count() is the right
thing to do.  I will resubmit the patch and also eliminate the the 4
lines of comments since the code would be more explicit as to what its

> Yeah, it probably unnecessary in this case, but I don't think the extra
> instruction plays an important role in the performance, (this is only
> called at mount time, and there are lots of other places doing little
> endian conversion in ext4_fill_super() anyway).

I originally wrote this patch using ext4_blocks_count() but later
changed it since it was faster to do it this way.  While mounting is
not always a performance critical section, I still see those few extra
instructions a little wasteful. :)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists