linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate super

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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:48:04 -0500
From:	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, tytso@....edu,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	sandeen@...hat.com, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate
	super_operation

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:06:30AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 08:36:48AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > There was concern that FITRIM ioctl is not common enough to be included
> > in core vfs ioctl, as Christoph Hellwig pointed out there's no real point
> > in dispatching this out to a separate vector instead of just through
> > ->ioctl.
> 
> Um, are you and Josef working independently of each other?  You don't
> seem to be cc'ing each other on your patches, and you're basically doing
> the same thing.
>

I guess they are the same thing in that we're both dealing with free'ing up
space, but thats about where the similarities end.  Lukas' work is in TRIM'ing
already free'd space, mine is in creating free'd space.  Plus I don't know
anything nor wish to ever know anything about TRIM ;).  Thanks,

Josef 
--
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