linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v5] UBI: Fastmap support (aka checkpointing)

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: <4FB4E613.4020100@nod.at>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2012 13:50:43 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	dedekind1@...il.com
CC:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Heinz.Egger@...utronix.de,
	tim.bird@...sony.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v5] UBI: Fastmap support (aka checkpointing)

Am 17.05.2012 05:39, schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 22:51 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> This is a bug-fix release. v4 handled static volumes wrong.
>> v6 will address everything that Artem pointed out.
> 
> Hi, I'll try to review this further, but few points I'd like to
> highlight.
> 
> 1. We'll need to re-structure the code a bit and rename scan.[ch] to
> attach.[ch], all data structures like 'struct ubi_scan_volume' which you
> re-use we will also need to rename and remove the "scan" word, etc. I am
> willing to do this preparation.

No problem. It's already on my list.

> 2. You need to re-use the scanning code we have for scanning the fastmap
> volumes, I think. May be you need some amendments there, but currently
> you have more duplication than needed. You'll just plug more of your
> code to the attach.c file: check if there fastmap, if yes, read it and
> scan the internal fastmap volumes by re-using functions in attach.c. So
> all the fastmap reading/checking/manipulating stuff is in fastmap.c, the
> scanning and interpreting is in attach.c.

Okay.

> Again, I am willing to do corresponding preparations for you, you'll
> need to amend your code then.

As I said, v6 will contain all requested changes.

> Also, I think you probably do not have to split your patches. For me it
> looks like there is a lot of work needed anyway, so you could just send
> it as one patch so far, to make things easier. Because reviewing this
> stuff by reading patches is too difficult anyway, and the reviewer has
> to apply it and review / navigate the real code, and just look sometimes
> to the patch.
> 

Will do.

Thanks,
//richard


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (491 bytes)