linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/18] fs: introduce a per-cpu last

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101008100346.GA27737@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 8 Oct 2010 06:03:46 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/18] fs: introduce a per-cpu last_ino allocator

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> FWIW, that one is begging to be split; what I mean is that there are
> two classes of callers; ones that will set i_ino themselves anyway
> and ones that really want i_ino invented.  Two functions?

There's no reason to add i_ino before adding it to the per-sb list,
we don't do so either for inodes acquired via iget.  The fix is simply
to stop assigning i_ino in new_inode and call the helper to get it in
the place that need it after the call to new_inode.  Later we can
even move to a lazy assignment scheme where needed.  I'd also really
like to get a grip on why the simple counters if fine for some
filesystems while we need iunique() for others.

--
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/