linux-ext4 - Fwd: [PATCH] Add support for DragonFly BSD operating system.

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

Message-ID: <CACegU+vCHhbtVXrF9EP5ShqV3tcGODqLN79aNavQcekBFiBh0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:28:51 +0200
From:	Antonio Huete Jimenez <ahuete.devel@...il.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Fwd: [PATCH] Add support for DragonFly BSD operating system.

2012/7/16 Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:26:57AM +0200, Antonio Huete Jiménez wrote:
> > I've pasted both new patches in this email with the intention of
> > producing less traffic in the mailing list, but I'm unsure if this
> > is the correct thing to do, opposed to sending one mail per patch.
>
> It's better to send one mail per patch.  The reason for that is we
> have automated tools that do the right thing with patches sent one per
> e-mail.  This includes patchwork (which tracks patches sent to the
> mailing list; see
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-ext4/list/) and "git am".
>
> Just use the git send-email tool; it will do the right thing.

I've used git send-email to send the patch that combines all BSDs into
a single tag.

>
>
> There are places where you are using #if defined(__DragonFly__) and
> there are other places where you are using #ifdef DIOCGPART.  Is there
> a reason for this?

I've used DIOCGPART because the rest of the code around uses
DIOCGMEDIASIZE, DIOCGDINFO in a kind of sorted order, so I just copied
the style.

>
>
> In general, it's better to avoid using explicit feature tests rather
> things like defined(__Dragonfly__) or defined(__solaris__).  What if
> an OS changes names or forks (i.e., like Open Solaris, Nextensa,
> Illumos, etc.).
>

Same could happen to the DIOCGDINFO #ifdefs, no?

>
> And the combination of an #ifdef based on HAVE_SYS_DISKLABEL_H,
> DIOCGPART, and defined(__DragonFly__) raises red flags that the
> combinatorics may be very brittle in the long run.
>

Right but in some parts it is necessary to skip the code even if
HAVE_SYS_DISKLABEL_H is defined. If you think there's a better way,
just let me know and I'll change it righaway.

>
> Regards,
>
>                                         - Ted

Cheers,
Antonio Huete
--
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