From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760150AbXEPOlP (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 10:41:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754761AbXEPOlD (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 10:41:03 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.169]:16196 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754586AbXEPOlB (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 10:41:01 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=bOm1+BdteOs7g3liWT0jYoeEsFP/WC7xeidDhgHa2QabLlOUe5Xm3vQJcG2SLHd2/CvaeIs5dCAXtyXlRGkkAklqcOjjvh7X52jt2fusNaP7sfrYRws3HzSvrReYYzxJh5zREa1WVGOnj/hAgXTuieGhm2Xc8NH1/nFyNawit0k= Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 18:33:08 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Christoph Hellwig , Cyrill Gorcunov , Andrew Morton , LKML , Ben Fennema , Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDF: check for allocated memory for inode data Message-ID: <20070516143308.GA8327@cvg> References: <20070510140000.GA12399@cvg> <20070510154640.c0299a52.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070511072939.GA25727@infradead.org> <20070511090127.GD9444@cvg> <20070511103956.GA30896@infradead.org> <20070511110920.GA11898@cvg> <20070513210126.GB14030@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070513210126.GB14030@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [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). | Hi Christoph, 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? Cyrill