linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4 : Pass GFP_KERNEL for transaction allocation if caller can handler failures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTin8_mKJB9JuBzXAyZ9-22B+a2Sdbg0b5VbJFdWY@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:04:09 -0800
From:	Manish Katiyar <mkatiyar@...il.com>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4 : Pass GFP_KERNEL for transaction allocation if
 caller can handler failures

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:44:25AM -0800, Manish Katiyar wrote:
>>
>> Do you mean separate patch for each of the changed functions ?
>
> Unless the cleanups for a set of functions are all the same issue,
> yes.  The idea is that commit description should apply to all of the
> patch hunks in the commit.
>
> That way if there is a problem, it becomes easier to bisect and then
> determine what's going on by reading the commit description.  It also
> becomes easier to review the changes, as well.
>
> Does that make sense?

Hi Ted,

Resending the above patch broken in following series of patch.

-- 
Thanks -
Manish
--
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