linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates

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: <1307929838-sup-4118@shiny>
Date:	Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:52:21 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Btrfs updates

Excerpts from Andi Kleen's message of 2011-06-12 21:02:54 -0400:
> Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > The for-linus branch of the btrfs unstable tree:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git for-linus
> 
> >
> > Has our current queue of fixes.  Josef's is the biggest pile, mostly in
> > the allocator.  Josef and I both managed to merge his patch to avoid
> > mapping the extent buffer if skip_locking was set, git merge is just a
> > little too easy sometimes (I double checked the resulting code).
> 
> The new in 3.0 btrfs warnings on every build are still there:
> 
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:76: warning: ‘btrfs_root_attrs’ defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:97: warning: ‘btrfs_super_attrs’ defined but not used
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:153: warning: ‘btrfs_super_release’ defined but not used   
> fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:160: warning: ‘btrfs_root_release’ defined but not used
> 
> These are not even used inside any ifdef. It's unclear to me: were
> these supposed to be used or removed?
> 
> Probably better to remove since they seem to be untested, unless
> it was a merge error?

Right, I've been trying to decide how much of the sysfs interface to rip
out.  We're not using it the way I had planned to, and Kay's proposed
udev changes are better than my original plans for sysfs.

One way or another I'll kill these off in the next rc.

-chris
--
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/