Re: [PATCH] XATTR support on JFFS2 (version. 5)

Jörn Engel
2006-05-10T13:32:59Z

On Mon, 8 May 2006 13:49:27 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 11:03 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> > [Current TODO list]
> > * Fix the declaration of jffs2_acl_header and so on by using 'struct'
> > instead of 'typedef' in kernel space.
> > - Fix the declaration of jffs2_acl_header and so on by using 'struct'
> > instead of 'typedef' in user space header.
> > * Add documentation about xattr_sem into README.Locking.
> > * Call jffs2_garbage_collect_xattr_datum/ref() from gc.c directly
> > instead of jffs2_garbage_collect_xattr()
> > - Use unidirection list beween inode_chache and xattr_ref, instead of
> > list_head.
> > - Add '#include <linux/list.h>' into xattr.h.
> > - Unify each file header part with any jffs2 files.
> > - Remove a senseless comment. ("/* forward refence */")
> > - Remove unneccesary pointer casts.
> > - Remove unneccesary '#ifdef __KERNEL__' on acl.h
> >
> > *: It has already prepared, but I've not publicated yet.
> > -: It has not prepated yet. I should work from now.
>
> That's an excellent summary; thanks. It does serve to show that we've
> mostly picked on cosmetic details so far though :)

Correct. The basic design makes sense, the code is good. I don't
feel opposed to merging it once above list is handled. The number of
new #ifdefs still concerns me a bit, but we can still deal with that
after the merge. There has been worse.

Jörn

--
You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks
occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a
speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is.
-- Rob Pike