linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: Use inode preallocation with -o noextents

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: <20080606162633.GA22364@skywalker>
Date:	Fri, 6 Jun 2008 21:56:33 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	cmm@...ibm.com, sandeen@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
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 repo.or.cz 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

-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