linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/19] writeback: simplify writeback iteration

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: <20240131130133.GA25391@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 14:01:33 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] writeback: simplify writeback iteration

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> The implied field initialization via !folio feels a little wonky to me
> just because it's not clear from the client code that both fields must
> be initialized. Even though the interface is simpler, I wonder if it's
> still worth having a dumb/macro type init function that at least does
> the batch and error field initialization.
> 
> Or on second thought maybe having writeback_iter() reset *error as well
> on folio == NULL might be a little cleaner without changing the
> interface....

I like that second idea.  An initialization helper I could live with,
but if only folio needs a defined state, that seems superflous.