linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] ext4: update direct I/O read to do trylock in IOCB

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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:04:21 +1100
From:   Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@...browski.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        hch@...radead.org, david@...morbit.com, darrick.wong@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] ext4: update direct I/O read to do trylock in
 IOCB_NOWAIT cases

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:48:17PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 21-10-19 20:18:46, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > This patch updates the lock pattern in ext4_dio_read_iter() to only
> > perform the trylock in IOCB_NOWAIT cases.
> 
> The changelog is actually misleading. It should say something like "This
> patch updates the lock pattern in ext4_dio_read_iter() to not block on
> inode lock in case of IOCB_NOWAIT direct IO reads."
> 
> Also to ease backporting of easy fixes, we try to put patches like this
> early in the series (fixing code in ext4_direct_IO_read(), and then the
> fixed code would just carry over to ext4_dio_read_iter()).

OK, understood. Now I know this for next time. :)

Providing that I have this patch precede the ext4_dio_read_iter()
patch and implement this lock pattern in ext4_direct_IO_read(), am I
OK to add the 'Reviewed-by' tag?

--<M>--