linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/18] fs: split __inode_add_to

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: <20101012113130.GA24650@infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:31:30 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/18] fs: split __inode_add_to_list

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:47:27PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> The only reason XFS hashed the inodes was to avoid problems in the
> generic code that checked for unhashed inodes during clear_inode(). The
> evict() changeover moved that unhashed check into
> generic_drop_inode(), which the filesystem can override. Hence if
> you add a ->drop_inode() method for XFS that just checks the link
> count, we can avoid ha??hing the inodes altogether for XFS.
> 
> I can add another patch on top of this one to do that if you want...

It's unfortunately not that simple.  Take a look at the unhashed check
in __mark_inode_dirty.  The drop_inode check could be avoided for
quite a long time now.  What we could do however is the same hack as
JFS does in diReadSpecial().
--
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/