From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AC47F5E for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 04:27:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52608F8033 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 5d7NS1VshY1xCou2 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 02:27:22 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: validate transaction header length on log recovery Message-ID: <20150621092722.GA7914@infradead.org> References: <1434631741-50856-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> <1434631741-50856-3-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1434631741-50856-3-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Brian Foster Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com This looks sensible to me, but I still can't make sense of the old code which just conditionally copied it even after taking a brief look at the pre-git history of this code. Does anyone understand why the code was like this? Fixing code that seems to have had an intention I can't make sense of always feel dangerous. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs