linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] loop: add management interface for on-demand device allocation

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: <CAPXgP13=_UoOZnwBMordFxiMiyfu+nF685+qk01zoy4jDrv=Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:18:18 +0200
From:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: add management interface for on-demand device allocation

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:17, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:50:30PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
>> Subject: loop: add management interface for on-demand device allocation
>>
>> Loop devices today have a fixed pre-allocated number of usually 8.
>> The number can only be changed at init time. To find a free device
>> to use, /dev/loop%i needs to be scanned and all devices need to be
>> opened.
>
> It generally looks good to me but I really hope it were split into
> multiple patches.  I think it's a bit too big and doing too many
> different things.  Can you please split it up?

Hmm, split into what? Like splitting the loop-control stuff off? The
rest can't really be split I guess, because all the linked lists need
to be converted to idr at once.

>> +static int loop_lookup(struct loop_device **lo, int nr);
>> +static int loop_add(struct loop_device **lo, int nr);
>
> Also, can't these return loop_device * and ERR_PTR() value on errors?

I think ERR_PTR is a nasty hack and looks ugly, and stuff should
return only pointers when the retuned errno can only ever be -ENOMEM,
like on malloc(). :)

Kay
--
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/