linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 05/11] ext4: remove ext4_end

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: <20121005042816.GD11723@thunk.org>
Date:	Fri, 5 Oct 2012 00:28:16 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	jack@...e.cz, lczerner@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] ext4: remove ext4_end_io()

I ended up dropping this patch since it doesn't make any difference to
the generated code (gcc will take a static function which is only used
in one place, and inline it) and it makes a bit more understandable to
have ext4_end_io() as a separate function.

> > +               /* Wake up anyone waiting on unwritten extent conversion */
> > +               if (atomic_dec_and_test(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_unwritten))
> > +                       wake_up_all(ext4_ioend_wq(io->inode));
> 
> Should we use "inode" instead of "io->inode"?

I agree it would be a bit cleaner/more readable, but again it won't
make a difference to the generated assembly, and while we oculd do
this in the original code in ext4_end_io(), I'm trying to put this
patch series to bed so I can push it to Linus, and since we're now not
touching the code, it's not worth it to clean this up now.  We can
take of this later....

						- 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