linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v6 19/20] xfs: minimal conversion to errseq

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170613043056.GO4530@birch.djwong.org>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 21:30:56 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        tytso@....edu, axboe@...nel.dk, mawilcox@...rosoft.com,
        ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com, corbet@....net,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 19/20] xfs: minimal conversion to errseq_t writeback
 error reporting

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 08:23:15AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Just set the FS_WB_ERRSEQ flag to indicate that we want to use errseq_t
> based error reporting. Internal filemap_* calls are left as-is for now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index 455a575f101d..28d3be187025 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
>  	.name			= "xfs",
>  	.mount			= xfs_fs_mount,
>  	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
> -	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
> +	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_WB_ERRSEQ,

Huh?  Why are there two patches with the same subject line?  And this
same bit of code too?  Or ... 11/13, 11/20?  What's going on here?

<confused>

--D

>  };
>  MODULE_ALIAS_FS("xfs");
>  
> -- 
> 2.13.0
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html