linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Convert return type int to vm_fault

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

Date:   Sat, 1 Sep 2018 21:51:28 +0530
From:   Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@...il.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, kemi.wang@...el.com,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nilfs <linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: Convert return type int to vm_fault_t

> Also, the fact that the patch series involves multiple file system is
> a massive pain.  It means I'm going to have to do a separate
> regression test --- or preferably, I would ask *you* to run a file
> system regression test[1] --- to make sure what is *not* a trivial
> patch doesn't break things.  Also, it means that this patch series is
> going to get more complicated to get into kernel, and we may have to
> deal with patch conflicts if this goes in via some third party tree
> (such as Andrew's tree).
>
> [1] https:/thunk.org/gce-xfstests

Sure, I will run the regression.

>
> One way to make life easier is to add the new function with the new
> interface first, and then wait a release cycle, and then move file
> systems over in independant patches.

In last review, you left it to me either to add new function or modify the
input parameters of block_page_mkwrite() to return err to caller.
As block_page_mkwrite() is getting called from 2 places in ext4 & nilfs,
I choose to add new input argument in block_page_mkwrite() rather than
introducing new function and put everything in a single commit.