linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCHv6 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying

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: <1342002259.18274.8.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:24:19 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 12:11 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > So case 2.b is a bit controversial, but I think it is acceptable. After all, by
> > > enabling checksumming we already sign up for paying the price of calculating
> > > it. The way to improve checksumming performance globally would be to calculate
> > > it just before sending buffers to the I/O queue. We'd need some kind of
> > > call-back which could be registered by file-systems.
>   Actually, the most common case of adding orphan inode used
> ext4_handle_dirty_super_now() so for that case there is no difference. And
> other cases are so rare it really does not matter... So there shouldn't be
> any measurable difference.

Thank you, I'll take a closer look and possibly change the commit
message.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)