linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: Use readahead when reading an inode from the inode table

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <48DCE7EC.5000801@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:47:24 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
CC:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ext4: Use readahead when reading an inode from the
 inode table

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2008  12:53 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> @@ -514,8 +514,10 @@ static void ext4_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
>> +	if (sbi->s_proc) {
>> +		remove_proc_entry("inode_readahead_bits", sbi->s_proc);
>>  		remove_proc_entry(sb->s_id, ext4_proc_root);
> 
> As a general UI interface, specifying the "bits to shift the filesystem
> block number" seems like an easy-to-implement but is fairly bad from
> a usability point of view.  I'd much prefer to specify this as a
> number of kB to readahead, and it can be converted internally to the
> number of blocks to readahead.  It isn't fatal if we do a bit of rounding
> on the input value to match a full blocksize.

Or specify that it must be a power of two in some range, and reject
other values - either way.

I had the same thought about the nr of bits as a user input value...

-Eric
--
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