linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] enable bs

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: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:19:07 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	gost.dev@...sung.com, chandan.babu@...cle.com, hare@...e.de,
	mcgrof@...nel.org, djwong@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, david@...morbit.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] enable bs > ps in XFS

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:42PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> This is the third version of the series that enables block size > page size
> (Large Block Size) in XFS. The context and motivation can be seen in cover
> letter of the RFC v1[1]. We also recorded a talk about this effort at LPC [3],
> if someone would like more context on this effort.

Thank you.  This is a lot better.

I'm still trying to understand your opinion on the contents of the
file_ra_state.  Is it supposed to be properly aligned at all times, or
do we work with it in the terms of "desired number of pages" and then
force it to conform to the minimum-block-size reality right at the end?
Because you seem to be doing both at various points.