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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 13:02:29 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <>
To:     NeilBrown <>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <>,
        Matthew Wilcox <>,
        Mel Gorman <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] EXT4: Remove ENOMEM/congestion_wait() loops.

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 03:25:40PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> Adding gfp_mask to __ext4_journal_start_sb() make perfect sense.
> There doesn't seem much point adding one to __ext4_journal_start(),
> we can have ext4_journal_start_with_revoke() call
> __ext4_journal_start_sb() directly.
> But I cannot see what it doesn't already do that.
> i.e. why have the inline __ext4_journal_start() at all?
> Is it OK if I don't use that for ext4_journal_start_with_revoke()?

Sure.  I think the only reason why we have __ext4_journal_start() as
an inline function at all was for historical reasons.  That is, we
modified __ext4_journal_start() so that it took a struct super, and
instead of changing all of the macros which called
__ext4_journal_start(), we named it to be __ext4_journal_start_sb()
and added the inline definition of __ext4_journal_start() to avoid
changing all of the existing users of __ext4_journal_start().

So sure, it's fine not to use that for
ext4_journal_start_with_revoke(), and we probably should clean up the
use of __ext4_journal_start() at some point.  That's unrelated to your
work, though.


					- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists