linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] vfs: move the clone/dedupe/remap helpers to a single file

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]

Message-ID: <20201015031819.GN3576660@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 04:18:19 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] vfs: move the clone/dedupe/remap helpers to a single
 file

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:31:14PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

> AFAICT, nobody is attempting to land any major changes in any of the vfs
> remap functions during the 5.10 window -- for-next showed conflicts only
> in the Makefile, so it seems like a quiet enough time to do this.  There
> are no functional changes here, it's just moving code blocks around.
> 
> So, I have a few questions, particularly for Al, Andrew, and Linus:
> 
> (1) Do you find this reorganizing acceptable?

No objections, assuming that it's really a move (it's surprisingly easy to
screw that up - BTDT ;-/)

I have not done function-by-function comparison, but assuming it holds...
no problem.

> (2) I was planning to rebase this series next Friday and try to throw it
> in at the end of the merge window; is that ok?  (The current patches are
> based on 5.9, and applying them manually to current master and for-next
> didn't show any new conflicts.)

Up to Linus.  I don't have anything in vfs.git around that area; the
only remaining stuff touching fs/read_write.c is nowhere near those,
AFAICS.