linux-ext4 - Re: e2p_blocks_count () vs. ext2fs_blocks

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]

Date:	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:48:08 +0700
From:	Ivan Shmakov <ivan@...y.siamics.net>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e2p_blocks_count () vs. ext2fs_blocks_count ()

>>>>> Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> writes:
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:25:19AM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

 >> Apparently, e2p_blocks_count (), a ‘static’ function in
 >> lib/e2p/ls.c, duplicates the public ext2fs_blocks_count () one
 >> (lib/ext2fs/blknum.c) as of d4c0d8e5.  The same holds for
 >> e2p_r_blocks_count () and e2p_free_blocks_count ().

 >> The code is, as it seems, exactly the same.

 >> I wonder, isn't there a problem?

 > That's deliberate; the goal was to make libe2p not dependent on
 > libext2fs, so that programs such as lsattr don't need to pull in
 > libext2fs.

	ACK.  Thanks.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257	Coming soon: Software Freedom Day
http://mail.sf-day.org/lists/listinfo/ planning-ru (ru), sfd-discuss (en)

--
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