Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] jffs2: safely remove obsolete dirent from the f->dents list | From | yuyufen <> | Date | Fri, 4 May 2018 16:06:24 +0800 |
| |
On 2018/4/28 6:22, David Woodhouse wrote: > This looks a lot better than the first iteration; thank you for getting > it to this point. One last thing, I hope... > On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 20:00 +0800, Yufen Yu wrote: >> --- a/fs/jffs2/jffs2_fs_i.h >> +++ b/fs/jffs2/jffs2_fs_i.h >> @@ -42,6 +42,12 @@ struct jffs2_inode_info { >> /* Directory entries */ >> struct jffs2_full_dirent *dents; >> >> + /* Directory open refcount */ >> + atomic_t nr_dir_opening; >> + >> + /* obsolete dirent count in the list of 'dents' */ >> + unsigned int obsolete_count; >> + >> /* The target path if this is the inode of a symlink */ >> unsigned char *target; >> > You've made JFFS2_INVALID_LIMIT 64, which is reasonable enough > (although it's a bit of a weird name and possibly wants to be more > specific — invalid *what*?). Thansk a lot for your suggestions.
Yes, it is really a bad name. How about JFFS2_OBS_DIRENT_LIMIT? I am not sure.
> > So the maximum interesting value of ->obsolete_count is 64. Which means > it might as well be a uint8_t and sit in the padding after the > 'usercompr' field. > > It might be useful to look at putting the mutually exclusive fields in > struct jffs2_inode_info into a union, and then we don't need the > additional space of the atomic_t either; we'll never need that *and* > the fragtree at the same time... will we? You are right, thanks. But, obsolete_count may be large. So, I apply to use uint16_t and it also sits in the padding after the 'usercompr' field.
Thanks, Yufen
| |