linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] [fs-devel] the real needs of just

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <91b13c310805081130s389195c1h8970290a8a34009a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 May 2008 02:30:41 +0800
From:	"rae l" <crquan@...il.com>
To:	"Steven Whitehouse" <swhiteho@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Al Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [fs-devel] the real needs of just_schedule

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 01:51 +0800, Denis Cheng wrote:
>  > there are some situations which really need a just schedule,
>  > with int return value;
>  > and this should be moved into lib/ in the future.
>  >
>  > Signed-off-by: Denis Cheng <crquan@...il.com>
>  > ---
>  >  fs/inode.c                |    2 +-
>  >  include/linux/writeback.h |   16 ++++++++++++----
>  >  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>  >
>  > diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
>  > index bf64781..b355a44 100644
>  > --- a/fs/inode.c
>  > +++ b/fs/inode.c
>  > @@ -1291,7 +1291,7 @@ int inode_needs_sync(struct inode *inode)
>  >
>  >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(inode_needs_sync);
>  >
>  > -int inode_wait(void *word)
>  > +int just_schedule(void *word)
>  >  {
>  >       schedule();
>  >       return 0;
>  > diff --git a/include/linux/writeback.h b/include/linux/writeback.h
>  > index f462439..80ff5eb 100644
>  > --- a/include/linux/writeback.h
>  > +++ b/include/linux/writeback.h
>  > @@ -67,23 +67,31 @@ struct writeback_control {
>  >
>  >  /*
>  >   * fs/fs-writeback.c
>  > - */
>  > + */
>  >  void writeback_inodes(struct writeback_control *wbc);
>  > -int inode_wait(void *);
>  >  void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *, int wait);
>  >  void sync_inodes(int wait);
>  >
>  > +/*
>  > + * fs/inode.c
>  > + *
>  > + * there are some situations which really need a just schedule,
>  > + * with int return value;
>  > + * and this should be moved into lib/ in the future.
>  > + */
>  > +int just_schedule(void *);
>  > +
>  Why is now not a good time? :-)
>
>  The patches look ok to me otherwise, but I wonder whether I should put
>  them in my tree (since they affect core code) or whether they'd be
>  better in -mm and/or linux-next?
The inode_wait in fs core code(fs/inode.c) is really just_schedule, so
is the gdlm_ast_wait, and they are all fs related code;

But inode_wait is not a better name for its work, instead just_schedule won.

So I should ask for opinions from fs core crew,

BTW, today I did a grep among the whole kernel tree and found that
just_schedule is also useful to other code, such as:

key_wait_bit(security/keys/request_key.c:25)

It's also really a just_schedule.

So just_schedule should go to lib/ ? Or we just append it into kernel/sched.c?

>
>  Steve.

-- 
Denis Cheng
--
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/