linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] remove PDE

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: <20211116120104.f96b7f21a333c2c8d140e015@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:01:04 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, gladkov.alexey@...il.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] remove PDE_DATA()

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 16:26:12 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:

> >
> > because new instances are sure to turn up during the development cycle.
> >
> > But I can handle that by staging the patch series after linux-next and
> > reminding myself to grep for new PDE_DATA instances prior to
> > upstreaming.
> 
> I'd be happy if you could replace PDE_DATA() with inode->i_private.
> In this case, should I still introduce pde_data() and perform the above
> things to make this series smaller?

I do tend to think that pde_data() would be better than open-coding
inode->i_private everywhere.  More explanatory, easier if we decide to
change it again in the future.