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: <4855E0F2.9070207@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:41:38 +0800
From:	Shen Feng <shen@...fujitsu.com>
To:	cmm@...ibm.com
CC:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, sandeen@...hat.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] ext4: Use inode preallocation with -o noextents



Mingming Cao Wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 14:13 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:22:20PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>>> when I moved this patch to the beginning of the unstable patch queue,
>>> it didn't apply.  When I tried to look at it, my head started
>>> spinning.  The patch applied to the wrong function, apparently,
>>> because there is so much code duplication "patch" got confused.  I
>>> can't blame it, though, because *I* got confused.  
>>>

...snip...

>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> index 09922ae..a810a21 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> @@ -4048,7 +4048,7 @@ ext4_fsblk_t ext4_mb_new_blocks(handle_t *handle,
>>  	sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
>>
>>  	if (!test_opt(sb, MBALLOC)) {
>> -		block = ext4_new_blocks_old(handle, ar->inode, ar->goal,
>> +		block = ext4_orlov_new_blocks(handle, ar->inode, ar->goal,
>>  					    &(ar->len), errp);
>>  		return block;
>>  	}
> 
> when we get to ext4_mb_new_blocks, don't we already tested MBALLOC is
> turned on?
> 

ext4_ext_get_blocks calls ext4_mb_new_blocks. So we have to check this.
So maybe ext4_ext_get_blocks should call ext4_new_blocks and 
we can remove this check.

-Shen Feng

--
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