linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] Assign bdi in super

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: <20090911181227.GM14984@kernel.dk>
Date:	Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:12:27 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, tytso@....edu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	jack@...e.cz, trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Assign bdi in super_block

On Fri, Sep 11 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:50:30PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > We do this automatically in get_sb_bdev() from the set_bdev_super()
> > callback. Filesystems that have their own private backing_dev_info
> > must assign that in ->fill_super().
> > 
> > Note that ->s_bdi assignment is required for proper writeback!
> 
> Looks good to me.   Can we get rid of BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK with this by
> simply not assigning a bdi?

Good question, I was indeed looking for an sb equivalent of that bdi
flag. And now ->s_bdi being set or not is indeed that. Some of our
generated writeback originates at the bdi level though, so we may or may
not have the sb. From a quick look at fs-writeback.c, it looks feasible
though. I'll try.

Can I take that as an acked-by?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/