linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ext4: pass allocation_request struct to ext4_(alloc,splice)

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

Message-ID: <20140903171721.GG2504@thunk.org>
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:17:21 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ext4: pass allocation_request struct to
 ext4_(alloc,splice)_branch

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:25:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   This seems to suggest ext4_new_meta_blocks() would be better off by
> taking allocation_request argument as well?

I thought about it, but the problem is that ext4_new_meta_blocks() is
called in many more places than ext4_alloc_branch().  So in this
patch, it was just a metter of moving some code from one function to
its (single) caller.

In the case of ext4_new_meta_blocks(), we would needing to replicate
that that code in four or five places, and we were passing in the
mb_flags field anyway, so it wasn't a case of needing to add yet
another argument to a function that had many more arguments to start
with.   So I decided it wasn't worth the effort.

Cheers,

						- 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