linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC v2 03/10] vfs: add one new mount option '-o hottrack'

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: <CAEH94LhZWUHiA9gJQGc8Zn9c9xOSmWsg_stXyXQjnQ3kntTGbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:21:11 +0800
From:	Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linuxram@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	cmm@...ibm.com, tytso@....edu, marco.stornelli@...il.com,
	stroetmann@...olinux.com, diegocg@...il.com, chris@...muel.org,
	Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 03/10] vfs: add one new mount option '-o hottrack'

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:25:34PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 08:56:28PM +0800, zwu.kernel@...il.com wrote:
>> >> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >>
>> >>   Introduce one new mount option '-o hottrack',
>> >> and add its parsing support.
>> >>   Its usage looks like:
>> >>    mount -o hottrack
>> >>    mount -o nouser,hottrack
>> >>    mount -o nouser,hottrack,loop
>> >>    mount -o hottrack,nouser
>> >
>> > I think that this option parsing should be done by the filesystem,
>> > even though the tracking functionality is in the VFS. That way ony
>> > the filesystems that can use the tracking information will turn it
>> > on, rather than being able to turn it on for everything regardless
>> > of whether it is useful or not.
>> >
>> > Along those lines, just using a normal superblock flag to indicate
>> > it is active (e.g. MS_HOT_INODE_TRACKING in sb->s_flags) means you
>> > don't need to allocate the sb->s_hot_info structure just to be able
>> If we don't allocate one sb->s_hot_info, where will those hash list
>> head and btree roots locate?
>
> I wrote that thinking (mistakenly) that s-hot)info was dynamically
> allocated rather than being embedded in the struct super_block.
>
> Indeed, if the mount option is held in s_flags, then it could be
> dynamically allocated, but I don't think that's really necessary...
ah, you prefer allocating it, OK, let me try. thanks for your explaination.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com



-- 
Regards,

Zhi Yong Wu
--
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