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: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:32:23 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Xiyu Yang <19210240158@...an.edu.cn> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yuanxzhang@...an.edu.cn, Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@...il.com> Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] kernfs: Convert from atomic_t to refcount_t on kernfs_node->count A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 02:49:37PM +0800, Xiyu Yang wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I consider it as a reference count due to its related operations and > the developer's comments, such as "put a reference count on a > kernfs_node" around the kernfs_put(). If anything wrong, please let me > know. Did you test this? Is this really a reference count when looking at the code? Or is it just a counter that we use for dealing with vfs issues? Usually filesystems and the vfs can not use the refcount_t type for various reasons, please do some research on that before making these changes. And of course, please explain how you tested this patch if you resubmit it with the needed information. thanks, greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists