[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240815144905.GA6039@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:49:05 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] ext4: avoid buffer_head leak in ext4_mark_inode_used
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 09:17:10PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>
>
> on 8/15/2024 5:55 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Release inode_bitmap_bh from ext4_read_inode_bitmap in
> >> ext4_mark_inode_used to avoid buffer_head leak.
> >> By the way, remove unneeded goto for invalid ino when inode_bitmap_bh
> >> is NULL.
> >
> > 1. I suggest to split such changes into separate update steps.
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.11-rc3#n81
> It's acceptable to me, but I'm not sure if it worth separate patches
> to others. I will do separate in next version if no person is against
> this.
No, that suggestion is stupid. There's no reason to generate even more
patches for a three line fix, it's very obvious that you're fixing a
missing resource release and rearranging the first error out
accordingly.
--D
> > 2. How do you think about to add any tags (like “Fixes” and “Cc”) accordingly?
> >
> > 3. Would you like to append parentheses to any function names?
> Thanks for remind me of these. I will improve the series in next
> version.
>
> Thanks,
> Kemeng
> >
> > Regards,
> > Markus
> >
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists