Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 May 2007 21:52:57 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] UDF: check for allocated memory for inode data |
| |
[Jan Kara - Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:38:52PM +0200] | > [Christoph Hellwig - Sun, May 13, 2007 at 10:01:26PM +0100] | > | On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 03:09:20PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | > | > | > | And please get rid of the UDF_I_* macro for everything you touch, just | > | > | > | put a | > | > | > | | > | > | > | struct udf_inode_info *uip = UDF_I(inode); | > | > | > | | > | > | > | at the beginning of the function and use the fields directly. | > | > | > | | > | > | > | > | > | > Actually to properly remove UDF_I* and UDF_SB_* macroses in the | > | > | > whole UDF subsystem - is _lot_ of work. I'm going to make it but | > | > | > not now (too busy). | > | > | | > | > | Doing it completely is a lot of work, yes. I was more thinking of | > | > | converting a piece of code once you do major changes. But if you | > | > | want to convert all the code as a separate patch I'm more than happy | > | > | aswell. | > | > | | > | > | > | > Christoph, my only argue against getting rid of UDF_I_* macro in | > | > my patch is UDF coding style, I don't want to damage it. I think | > | > we may leave it as is (including my patch). So just review the patch | > | > I sent (second version) and Ack it then so Andrew could include it | > | > into mm tree. Meantime I'm rewritting the whole UDF subsystem to | > | > get rid of that macroses (it will be a long way ;) | > | | > | The UDF style is horrible and very unlike other kernel code. Given | > | that udf has been pretty much unmtained for a while there should be | > | nothing in the way of fixing it. | > | | > | Anyway, the patch is technically correct so you'll get my ACK (not | > | that you should need it). | > | | > | > you know I've read UDF sources. As I understand all UDF_I_ macroses | > could be converted without breaking UDF state but... as you exactly | > mentoined it's style is horrible and I'm thinking about rewritting the | > whole UDF system. Unfortunelly I'm not _mature_ kernel developer (I'm kernel | > newbie) and it could take a long time for this (I think something like | > ~ 3 month or more ;). Actually I'm ready to spend my free time for | > this. So how do you think could it be reasonable? | I've spent some time hunting bugs in UDF recently so I'll warn you a | bit :). Definitely rewriting that ... code would be a good thing to do | (reading that code I had urges to do it several times). The hard thing | is that there is no reasonable spec you could use - there are two | documents which define how UDF should look like but they are really hard | to read (they have like hundred pages each and one does not make sence | without the other). And reading the code and learning how the filesystem is | supposed to work isn't too helpful either. Just a friendly warning ;) | | Honza | -- | Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> | SuSE CR Labs |
I've that documants even printed ;) Actually they are _very-very_ big indeed. I don't know may be just try to bring this code into Linux codying style?
Cyrill
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |