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  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:	Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:23:38 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <>
To:	Andreas Dilger <>
CC:	Avantika Mathur <>,
Subject: Re: Ext4 devel interlock meeting minutes (October 1, 2007)

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Oct 01, 2007  15:10 -0700, Avantika Mathur wrote:
>> Delayed Allocation:
>> - There has been an lkml thread about these patches.
>> - We have and approach that works for ext4, implemented at the vfs 
>> level, but unless we can prove it can work for other filesystems, it 
>> will not be accepted.  
>> - Christoph Hellwig has commented that these patches will not work for 
>> XFS.  
> Hmm, but I thought that Christoph also agreed that it would be OK to
> get the ext4 delalloc code merged separately, so long as it doesn't
> need big/any changes to the VFS to implement it.  It might be that the
> ext4 and XFS code is different enough that they cannot share the
> delayed allocation code.

IIRC there is only one change to the VFS, a test for buffer_delay() in
__block_write_full_page().  XFS is the only current caller of
set_buffer_delay, and XFS does not even use the block_write_full_page path.

The rest was a huge chunk dropped into mpage.c, but not interfering with
anything else.

So, I don't see any conflict.

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