linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070515191926.GB1220@lazybastard.org>
Date:	Tue, 15 May 2007 21:19:26 +0200
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>
To:	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...l.org,
	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LogFS take three

On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:05 -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> 
> I've been semi watching this, and the only comment I really can give
> is that I hate the name.  To me, logfs implies a filesystem for
> logging purposes, not for Flash hardware with wear leveling issues to
> be taken into account.

Yeah, well, ...

Two years ago when I started all this, I was looking for a good name.
All I could come up with sounded stupid, so I picked "LogFS" as a code
name.  As soon as I find a better name, the code name should get
replaced.

By now I still don't have anything better.  All alternatives that were
proposed are just as bad - with the added disadvantage of being new and
not established yet.  My hope of ever finding a better name is nearly
zero.

> Also, having scanned through the code, I find the name "cookie" using
> in logfs_inode(), logfs_iput(), logfs_iget() to be badly named.  It
> should really be something like *cached_inode, which would seem to
> give more natural semantics of
> 
> 	if (cached_inode)
> 		do_cached_inode_ops(...)
> 	else
> 		do_inode_ops(...)

Half-agreed.  For callers, the name "cookie" makes sense.  It is a
transparent thing they should not tough and hand back unchanged.  For
logfs_iget() and logfs_iput() something like "is_cached" would be
better.

Will change.

Jörn

-- 
Linux [...] existed just for discussion between people who wanted
to show off how geeky they were.
-- Rob Enderle
-
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/