linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 03/15] mke2fs: simplify inode table block counting

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: <20101220154458.GJ23626@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:44:58 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] mke2fs: simplify inode table block counting

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 08:49:05PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 
> We have ext2fs_div[64]_ceil() for that. So I can use it like
> 
> ipb = fs->blocksize / EXT2_INODE_SIZE(fs->super);
> num = ext2_fs_div_ceil(fs->super->s_inodes_per_group -
> 			ext2fs_bg_itable_unused(fs, i), ipb);
> 
> or
> 
> num = ext2_fs_div_ceil((fs->super->s_inodes_per_group -
> 			ext2fs_bg_itable_unused(fs, i)) *
> 		       EXT2_INODE_SIZE(fs->super),
> 		       EXT2_BLOCK_SIZE(fs->super));
> 
> Either is fine to me. Ted, what's your preference?

I've checked in the second since it's closer to the original code.

     	     	    	   	      - Ted
--
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