linux-kernel - Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH 0/6] 9p: Use IDRs more effectively

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:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:38:34 +0200
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH 0/6] 9p: Use IDRs more effectively

Matthew Wilcox wrote on Thu, Jun 28, 2018:
> The 9p code doesn't take advantage of the IDR's ability to store
> a pointer.  We can actually get rid of the p9_idpool abstraction
> and the multi-dimensional array of requests.
> 
> I haven't tested these patches, so caveat maintainer.

Overall pretty good for something that hadn't even been tested!

I'm done with the comments here, the three other patches I didn't
comment look good to me.

For [PATCH 4/6] 9p: Remove an unnecessary memory barrier, your suggested
wording in the comment is good; I've offered to do it if you aren't
going to but since you're submitting a second version of the other
patchs I suggest you do this one as well.

Thanks for the well-needed cleanup,
-- 
Dominique Martinet