| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:46:58 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] locks: have locks_release_file use flock_lock_file to release generic flock locks On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 06:42:57AM -0800, Jeff Layton wrote: > > I'd suggest keeping an open coded loop in locks_remove_flock, which > > should both be more efficient and easier to review. > > > > I don't know. On the one hand, I rather like keeping all of the lock > removal logic in a single spot. On the other hand, we do take and drop > the i_lock/flc_lock more than once with this scheme if there are both > flock locks and leases present at the time of the close. Open coding > the loops would allow us to do that just once. > > I'll ponder it a bit more for the next iteration... FYI, I like the split into locks_remove_flock, it's just that flock_lock_file is giant mess. If it helps you feel free to keep it as-is for now and just document what you did in the changelog in detail. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists