linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes in fat_mirror

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: <f46018bb0610271156p63e71eebg7992b99ec50ce005@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:56:16 -0400
From:	"Holden Karau" <holden@...scanfly.ca>
To:	"Jörn Engel" <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
Cc:	"Josef Sipek" <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>,
	hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	holdenk@...dros.com, "akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, holden.karau@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes in fat_mirror_bhs [really unmangled]

Hi Jörn,

Thanks for your time, I'll make those changes [along with a few other
things I noticed while benchmarking it]. Before I put together a
patch, does anyone else see any obvious stuff I should clean up?

Cheers,

Holden :-)

On 10/26/06, Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de> wrote:
> I didn't pay too much attention, but found some low hanging fruits.
>
> On Thu, 26 October 2006 07:59:42 -0400, Holden Karau wrote:
> >
> > -/* FIXME: We can write the blocks as more big chunk. */
> >  static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
> > -                       int nr_bhs)
> > +                       int nr_bhs ) {
> > +  return fat_mirror_bhs_optw(sb , bhs , nr_bhs, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int fat_mirror_bhs_optw(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
> > +                            int nr_bhs , int wait)
>
> Does this compile without warnings?  Looks as if you should reverse
> the order of the two functions.
>
For some reason it compiles without warnings for me, but I'll switch the order.
> >  {
> >       struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
> > -     struct buffer_head *c_bh;
> > +     struct buffer_head *c_bh[nr_bhs];
> >       int err, n, copy;
> >
> > +     /* Always wait if mounted -o sync */
> > +     if (sb->s_flags & MS_SYNCHRONOUS ) {
> > +       wait = 1;
> > +     }
>
> Coding style.  Use a tab for indentation and don't use braces for
> single-line conditional statements.
>
Sorry about that. A lot of the places where I used braces are because
I had some debugging output in there while I was hacking on it. I'll
change it.
> > +
> >       err = 0;
> > +     err = fat_sync_bhs_optw( bhs  , nr_bhs , wait);
>
> The err=0; is superfluous now, isn't it?
>
.... no comment :-)
> > +     if (err)
> > +       goto error;
>
> Indentation.
>
oops :-) I'll fix that.
> Jörn
>
> --
> Fantasy is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited,
> while fantasy embraces the whole world.
> -- Albert Einstein
>


-- 
Cell: 613-276-1645
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/