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: 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists