linux-kernel - Re: time to move fs/bio.c to block/ ?

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]

Date:	Mon, 19 May 2014 09:58:46 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: time to move fs/bio.c to block/ ?

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:39:42PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> ACK on ioprio.c (BTW, looking at block...  WTF is the story with that
> pile of blk-* in there?  IOW, why blk-exec.c is better than exec.c,
> etc.?)
> 
> As for fs/no-block.c...  IMO that's a bad idea - it makes sense only
> if we take fs/block.c there as well, and that one wants fs/internal.h.

Right, we still have block_dev.c which is more VFS than block.  Makes
sense to keep no-block.c then.

> Why do we need that ->llseek = noop_llseek there, while we are at it?
> Its ->open() always fails, so how is ->llseek() going to get looked at,
> let alone called?

Looks like a larger mechanical conversation of lseek instances..
--
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/