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:	Fri, 6 Jun 2008 21:56:33 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <>
To:	Theodore Tso <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: Use inode preallocation with -o noextents

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:37:01AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:13:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > 
> > Something like below ? . I will send a final patch once I get the
> > patchqueu updated. I am not able to reach currently.
> This is better, but it still means that we are exporting a large
> number of functions to the callers.  It's not clear to me we need so
> many different variants of ext4_new_blocks_* --- what is their
> justification to exist?
> For example, why not just have:
> static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_new_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
>        				ext4_lblk_t iblock, ext4_fsblk_t goal,
> 				unsigned long *count, int *errp, int meta)

Now that we have moved all the code to do_blk_alloc, we can be assured
that we won't miss bug fixes to those allocation APIs when fixing one of
them. IMHO having separate APIs reduces the risk of misusing them

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