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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 15:24:53 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> Cc: Ayush Ranjan <ayushr2@...inois.edu>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Ext4 documentation fixes. On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:16:23 -0700 Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote: > On Aug 15, 2019, at 09:11, Ayush Ranjan <ayushr2@...inois.edu> wrote: > > > > This commit aims to fix the following issues in ext4 documentation: > > - Flexible block group docs said that the aim was to group block > > metadata together instead of block group metadata. > > - The documentation consistly uses "location" instead of "block number". > > It is easy to confuse location to be an absolute offset on disk. Added > > a line to clarify all location values are in terms of block numbers. > > - Dirent2 docs said that the rec_len field is shortened instead of the > > name_len field. > > - Typo in bg_checksum description. > > - Inode size is 160 bytes now, and hence i_extra_isize is now 32. > > - Cluster size formula was incorrect, it did not include the +10 to > > s_log_cluster_size value. > > - Typo: there were two s_wtime_hi in the superblock struct. > > - Superblock struct was outdated, added the new fields which were part > > of s_reserved earlier. > > - Multiple mount protection seems to be implemented in fs/ext4/mmp.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ayush Ranjan <ayushr2@...inois.edu> > > Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> I've applied this to the docs tree. However, Ayush: the patch was rather badly corrupted by your mail client. I managed to fix it up, but please in the future verify that you can email a patch to yourself and apply it before submitting it. There may be some useful hints in Documentation/process/email-clients.rst . Thanks, jon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists