linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 14/18] fs/logfs/segment.c

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: <20070604090711.GD14823@lazybastard.org>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:07:11 +0200
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...ybastard.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, akpm@...l.org,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>,
	CaT <cat@....com.au>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	David Weinehall <tao@....umu.se>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	Dongjun Shin <djshin90@...il.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Ondrej Zajicek <santiago@...reenet.org>,
	Ulisses Furquim <ulissesf@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 14/18] fs/logfs/segment.c

On Mon, 4 June 2007 00:21:41 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 03 June 2007, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(compr_mutex);
> > +
> 
> It seems you define a static compre_mutex in both segment.c and in compr.c,
> and always lock them both at the same time. Is that a correct observation?
> Is it intentional, or an oversight on your side?

Lame coding on my side.  Seems to have gone lost in my notes, but this
mutex should get removed and the protected memory made per-superblock.
Unlike the zlib workspace it does not consume 300k, so there is no
excuse for it here.

Jörn

-- 
Joern's library part 9:
http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Publications/Gus/TwelveWays.html
-
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/