linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 4/7] dax: introduce DAX_RECOVERY

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]

Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 04:15:19 +0000
From:   Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:     "dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>,
        "djwong@...nel.org" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev" <nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "vishal.l.verma@...el.com" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "dave.jiang@...el.com" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>,
        "snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        "dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        "ira.weiny@...el.com" <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "vgoyal@...hat.com" <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/7] dax: introduce DAX_RECOVERY_WRITE dax access mode

On 4/20/2022 11:57 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> +	if (bb->count &&
>> +		badblocks_check(bb, sector, num, &first_bad, &num_bad)) {
> 
> Weird alignment here, continuing lines for conditionals are aligned
> either after the opening brace:
> 
> 	if (bb->count &&
> 	    badblocks_check(bb, sector, num, &first_bad, &num_bad)) {
> 
> or with double tabs.  I tend to prefer the version I posted above.
> 
> The being said, shouldn't this change even be in this patch and not just
> added once we add actual recovery support?

Right, will move the recovery_write related  changes to next patch.

thanks!
-jane