linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/16] pktcdvd: Switch to bio

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: <20120528013012.GD9891@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 May 2012 10:30:12 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	axboe@...nel.dk, agk@...hat.com, neilb@...e.de,
	drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, bharrosh@...asas.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
	mpatocka@...hat.com, sage@...dream.net, yehuda@...newdream.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/16] pktcdvd: Switch to bio_kmalloc()

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:25:27PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> This is prep work for killing bi_destructor - previously, pktcdvd had
> its own pkt_bio_alloc which was basically duplication bio_kmalloc(),
> necessitating its own bi_destructor implementation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
> Change-Id: I5604293e07f695c8f0106ae819e306f1def89a67
> ---
>  drivers/block/pktcdvd.c |  115 ++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c b/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c
> index ba66e44..6fe693a 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c
> @@ -522,36 +522,38 @@ static void pkt_bio_finished(struct pktcdvd_device *pd)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> -static void pkt_bio_destructor(struct bio *bio)
> +static void pkt_end_io_read(struct bio *bio, int err)

* Why isn't pktcdvd maintainer cc'd?

* How is it tested or why do you think this change is correct?

* Didn't Boaz point out that mixing function relocations and
  functional changes makes the patch difficult to review and verify
  already?  Why doesn't the patch description mention function
  relocations?  And why are they mixed with functional changes?

-- 
tejun
--
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/