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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMZfGtWQRHFWAyrfoZ3tV67FFLJH7T=Wi2QVoiO=S9w=s0S7Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 16:24:10 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:01 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Got it. I'll do that in the next version. Thanks.