| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:00:10 -0700 From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com> To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> Cc: ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OCFS2: Allow huge (> 16 TiB) volumes to mount On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote: > On 2010-07-12, at 19:08, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote: >> >> Are you suggesting I need to do this before my patch is accepted at >> all? Or is this a refactoring that can happen later? > > I'm just suggesting it should be done at some point. I thought it would be better to do it first, rather than add yet another copy of this code. That said, I hate to block useful fixes because of cleanup (and I have no control over OCFS2 anyway :-). However, I've found that once the fix is in people usually forget (or become too busy) to do the cleanup and it just lingers on unseen. I hear you. I do not object to factoring out the basic addressability test and using it in my patch, leaving it for others -- like yourself :-) -- to modify other file systems to invoke it. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise? If so, where should the function live and what should it be called, do you think? - Pat -- 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