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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 17:27:11 -0700
From:   harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/9] ext4: main fast-commit commit path

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:14 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 05:54:47PM -0700, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> >  fs/jbd2/commit.c            |   42 ++
> >  fs/jbd2/journal.c           |  119 +++-
>
> Why are these changes here instead of the previous commit (jbd2: add
> fast commit machinery)?
Makes sense, Ill move these functions to the previous commit.
>
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > index ba35ecb18616..dadd9994e74b 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
> > @@ -202,6 +202,47 @@ static int journal_submit_inode_data_buffers(struct address_space *mapping,
> >       return ret;
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Send all the data buffers related to an inode */
> > +int jbd2_submit_inode_data(journal_t *journal, struct jbd2_inode *jinode)
> > +{
> > +     struct address_space *mapping;
> > +     loff_t dirty_start;
> > +     loff_t dirty_end;
> > +     int ret;
> > +
> > +     if (!jinode)
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     dirty_start = jinode->i_dirty_start;
> > +     dirty_end = jinode->i_dirty_end;
> > +
> > +     if (!(jinode->i_flags & JI_WRITE_DATA))
> > +             return 0;
> > +
> > +     dirty_start = jinode->i_dirty_start;
> > +     dirty_end = jinode->i_dirty_end;
>
> Why is dirty_start and dirty_end initialized twice?
Thanks for catching this. I'll fix this in V10.
>
> Also, this is going to conflcit with Mauricio's data=journal patches,
> which you'll notice when you rebase these patches on the current dev branch.
Thanks for the heads up.
- Harshad
>
> (The dev branch temporarily had your v9 patches merged in, so we could
> get the test bots to comment on your changes, but I've since pulled
> the fc patches back out.)
>
>                                         - Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists