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 11:05:49 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: time to move fs/bio.c to block/ ?

On 05/19/2014 10:39 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 07:34:16AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 08:31:21AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> While you are at it, could you take bio-integrity.c with it?  _That_
>>>> has zero excuse being anywhere in fs/* - not even "filesystem code
>>>> uses quite a few functions from that sucker" as with bio.c.
>>>> FWIW, consider the move ACKed.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I did include that in the move.
>>
>> Other candidates to move to block/ might be ioprio.c and no-block.c
> 
> 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.?)

Intent was to separate the core code from the other code, back when it
was all split from ll_rw_blk.c. I'd still prefer it that way, as opposed
to (eg) putting it in block/core/exec.c.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/