[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061031163002.GC23021@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:30:02 +0100
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
To: Holden Karau <holdenk@...dros.com>
Cc: Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>,
hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"akpm@...l.org" <akpm@...l.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
holden@...scanfly.ca, holden.karau@...il.com,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes revised
On Tue, 31 October 2006 10:03:08 -0500, Holden Karau wrote:
> +static int fat_mirror_bhs_optw(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
> + int nr_bhs , int wait)
> {
> struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
> - struct buffer_head *c_bh;
> + struct buffer_head *c_bh[nr_bhs*(sbi->fats)];
Variable-sized array on the kernel-stack? That can easily explode in
your hands. Unless you are _very_ sure about the bounds, you should
do an explicit kmalloc. And if you were that sure, you could just as
well have an array with fixed size.
> + if (sb->s_flags & MS_SYNCHRONOUS )
[...]
> + }
[...]
> + int nr_bhs )
Trailing whitespace in those lines.
Jörn
--
Prosperity makes friends, adversity tries them.
-- Publilius Syrus
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists