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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110822163329.GC3671@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:33:29 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e2p_blocks_count () vs. ext2fs_blocks_count ()

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.

						- 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