linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: fix some small problems

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <5864EB5A020000F90005CFF8@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2016 19:54:18 -0700
From:   "Gang He" <ghe@...e.com>
To:     <mfasheh@...sity.com>
Cc:     <jlbec@...lplan.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: fix some small problems




>>> 
> Hi Gang, one small comment below:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Gang He <ghe@...e.com> wrote:
>> First, move setting fe_done = 1 in spin lock, avoid bring
>> any potential race condition. Second, tune mlog message level
>> from ERROR to NOTICE, since the message should not belong to
>> error message.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gang He <ghe@...e.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/ocfs2/filecheck.c | 8 ++++----
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> @@ -545,11 +545,11 @@ static ssize_t ocfs2_filecheck_store(struct kobject 
> *kobj,
>>         spin_lock(&ent->fs_fcheck->fc_lock);
>>         if ((ent->fs_fcheck->fc_size >= ent->fs_fcheck->fc_max) &&
>>             (ent->fs_fcheck->fc_done == 0)) {
>> -               mlog(ML_ERROR,
>> +               mlog(ML_NOTICE,
>>                 "Cannot do more file check "
>>                 "since file check queue(%u) is full now\n",
>>                 ent->fs_fcheck->fc_max);
>> -               ret = -EBUSY;
>> +               ret = -EAGAIN;
> 
> This change wasn't described in the patch header. Granted, from the
> message above the change, -EAGAIN certainly seems a more reasonable
> return value but it would be good to know whether this was intended
> and why.
Hello Mark, thank for your comments, I will add the description for this change in V3.
Do you have any other comments for the other patches in v2?

Thanks
Gang

> 
> Thanks,
>    --Mark