From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760196AbXEMVBl (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2007 17:01:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754857AbXEMVBf (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2007 17:01:35 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:49108 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755481AbXEMVBe (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2007 17:01:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 22:01:26 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , LKML , Ben Fennema , Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDF: check for allocated memory for inode data Message-ID: <20070513210126.GB14030@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Cyrill Gorcunov , Andrew Morton , LKML , Ben Fennema , Jan Kara References: <20070510140000.GA12399@cvg> <20070510154640.c0299a52.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070511072939.GA25727@infradead.org> <20070511090127.GD9444@cvg> <20070511103956.GA30896@infradead.org> <20070511110920.GA11898@cvg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070511110920.GA11898@cvg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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).