linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/20] famfs: Add famfs

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]

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:28:46 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: John Groves <John@...ves.net>
CC: John Groves <jgroves@...ron.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "Dan
 Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Vishal Verma
	<vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, "Alexander
 Viro" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, "Jan
 Kara" <jack@...e.cz>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	<linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>, <john@...alactic.com>, Dave Chinner
	<david@...morbit.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <gregory.price@...verge.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/20] famfs: Add famfs_internal.h

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:35:17 -0600
John Groves <John@...ves.net> wrote:

> On 24/02/26 12:48PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:41:52 -0600
> > John Groves <John@...ves.net> wrote:
> >   
> > > Add the famfs_internal.h include file. This contains internal data
> > > structures such as the per-file metadata structure (famfs_file_meta)
> > > and extent formats.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: John Groves <john@...ves.net>  
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > Build this up as you add the definitions in later patches.
> > 
> > Separate header patches just make people jump back and forth when trying
> > to review.  Obviously more work to build this stuff up cleanly but
> > it's worth doing to save review time.
> >   
> 
> Ohhhhkaaaaay. I think you're right, just not looking forward to
> all that rebasing.

:)  Patch mangling is half the fun of upstream development :)

> 
> > Generally I'd plumb up Kconfig and Makefile a the beginning as it means
> > that the set is bisectable and we can check the logic of building each stage.
> > That is harder to do but tends to bring benefits in forcing clear step
> > wise approach on a patch set. Feel free to ignore this one though as it
> > can slow things down.  
> 
> I'm not sure that's practical. A file system needs a bunch of different
> kinds of operations
> - super_operations
> - fs_context_operations
> - inode_operations
> - file_operations
> - dax holder_operations, iomap_ops
> - etc.
> 
> Will think about the dependency graph of these entities, but I'm not sure
> it's tractable...

Sure.  There's a difference though between doing something useful (or
even successfully loading) and being able to build it at intermediate steps.
I'm only looking for buildability.

If not possible, even with a few stubs, empty ops structures etc
then fair enough.

Jonathan