linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] ext4: mechanical change on dio get_block code in prepare for it to be used by buffer write

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:	Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:12:47 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] ext4: mechanical change on dio get_block code in
 prepare for it to be used by buffer write

On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:19:30 -0600, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> 
> > How about
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CREATE. Indicate we should do block
> > allocation. But that flag alone doesn't say whether we are suppose
> > to create init or uninit extent.
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_UNINIT_EXT -> Request the creation of uninit extent
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CREATE_UNINIT_EXT -> EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CREATE|EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_UNINIT_EXT;
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE -> Request for delayed allocaion
> > reservation
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_PRE_IO  -> 0x0008 -> Indicate that we should do all
> > necessary extent split and make the requested range in to single extent.
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CONVERT_IO -> Convert the specified range which should be a
> > single extent into init and then try to merge the extent to left/right
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_IO_CREATE_EXT -> EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_PRE_IO | EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CREATE_UNINIT_EXT
> > 
> > EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_IO_CONVERT_EXT -> EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CREATE | EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CONVERT_IO;
> 
> 
> In addition to Aneesh's suggestions, I'm not sure of the value of
> creating more
> 
> #define FLAG_A = FLAG_B|FLAG_C
> 
> flag macros; unless you have this all in your head you just have to
> go look up the flag definition anyway, since we usually test individual
> flags not the aggregates.  I'm wondering if it might be better to just
> explicitly send in the OR'd flags rather than creating a new one, to
> see the code flow better.
> 
> Maybe it saves space, but at the cost of easy understanding IMHO.
> At least that's been my experience.


It help us to do things like below

  if (flag & FLAG_B)
     /* we need to do things for flag B */

 if (flag & FLAG_C)
     /* things for flag C */

instead of

  if ((flag & FLAG_A) || (flag & FLAG_D) 
    /* things related to previous flag B */

So it simplifies the if condition.

-aneesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html