linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 11/15] mke2fs: fix determination of size

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1012011645450.3071@dhcp-lab-213.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:46:20 +0100 (CET)
From:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] mke2fs: fix determination of size_type

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Namhyung Kim wrote:

> 2010-11-30 (화), 13:33 +0100, Lukas Czerner:
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > 
> > > In original code, 'huge' type could not be selected because it
> > > always be caught for 'big' type. Change the ordering.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  misc/mke2fs.c |    4 ++--
> > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/misc/mke2fs.c b/misc/mke2fs.c
> > > index 90cc206..b88decf 100644
> > > --- a/misc/mke2fs.c
> > > +++ b/misc/mke2fs.c
> > > @@ -947,10 +947,10 @@ static char **parse_fs_type(const char *fs_type,
> > >  		size_type = "floppy";
> > >  	else if (fs_blocks_count < 512 * meg)
> > >  		size_type = "small";
> > > -	else if (fs_blocks_count >= 4 * 1024 * 1024 * meg)
> > > -		size_type = "big";
> > >  	else if (fs_blocks_count >= 16 * 1024 * 1024 * meg)
> > >  		size_type = "huge";
> > > +	else if (fs_blocks_count >= 4 * 1024 * 1024 * meg)
> > > +		size_type = "big";
> > >  	else
> > >  		size_type = "default";
> > >  
> > > 
> > 
> > Personally, I do not like it very much. Either sort this in ascending order
> > and use "<" or sort it in descending order and use ">=". But since it
> > was originally sorted in ascending order I would do that this way.
> > 
> > -Lukas
> 
> No problem. You mean "floppy, small, default, big and huge", right? I'll
> resend v2 if you prefer that, Ted.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Right.

Thanks!

-Lukas