linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/46] fs: dcache scale hash

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: <20101210023520.GC3331@amd>
Date:	Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:35:20 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/46] fs: dcache scale hash

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:42:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:53:27PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >> Like I said, there are infinite cleanups or improvements you can make.
> > >> It does not particularly matter that they happen before or after the
> > >> scaling work, except if there are classes of APIs that the new locking
> > >> model can no longer support.
> > >
> > > We do plenty of cleanups when changing code when the result gives us
> > > simpler and easier to understand code. It's a trivial change that,
> > > IMO, makes the code more consistent and easier to follow.
> > 
> > Unrelated "cleanups" in the same patch as non trivial locking change
> > is stupid.
> 
> So put it in another prepartory patch. It makes the locking changes
> easier to understand...

I didn't change that, though, the ordering of locking unrelated
dentries and the code is already in rename code and is not touched
during this patch set.

> > Necessary changes to prevent bad ugliness resulting, or preventing
> > repeated steps for the particular changes, etc. of course. Killing un
> > related functions no.
> 
> Ok, I get the picture. You don't want a code review, you want a
> rubber stamp. Find someone else to get it from.

Of course I want code review. I am not going to just do everything
you say that I don't agree with, but I will explain why every time
(as I have done to all your points).

I would prefer more in-depth review than from someone who doesn't know
d_lock protects d_flags, but any and all help is welcome. Even minor
nitpicking or cleanups are welcome if they are relevant to the patches.

Thanks,
Nick

PS. don't accuse me of not wanting a code review, because you're just
projecting. To paraphrase you:

 I don't have to justify myself to you, nick, only the maintainers, so
 I'm not answering.

In response to my questions.

--
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/