linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] f2fs: extent cache: support unaligned extent

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: <d08ada1d-b0a3-6ed8-449b-10bf2518f5ba@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:55:01 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chao Yu <chao.yu@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] f2fs: extent cache: support unaligned extent

On 2021/8/4 2:41, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> @@ -247,6 +247,11 @@ static struct extent_node *__attach_extent_node(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&en->list);
>>   	en->et = et;
>>   
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION
> 
> Can we avoid the above ifdef?

What do you mean by "avoid", getting rid of CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION directly?
or wrapping codes into function and define as below?

#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION
void foo() { implementation here }
#else
void foot() {}
#endif

>>   static inline bool __is_extent_mergeable(struct extent_info *back,
>> -						struct extent_info *front)
>> +				struct extent_info *front, bool unaligned)
>>   {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_FS_COMPRESSION
> 
> Can we avoid this ifdef?