On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:06 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So instead of that simple "if (!entry)", we'd effectively have to
> continue to use something that still works with the old world order
> (ie that "if (list_entry_is_head())" model).
Just to prove my point about how this is painful, that
So looking at this patch, I really reacted to the fact that quite
often the "use outside the loop" case is all kinds of just plain
unnecessary, but _used_ to be a convenience feature.
I'll just quote the first chunk in it's entirely as an example - not
because I think this chunk is particularly
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 01 March 2022 19:07
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:29 PM James Bottomley
> wrote:
> >
> > However, if the desire is really to poison the loop variable then we
> > can do
> >
> > #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member) \
> > for
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:58 PM David Laight wrote:
>
> Can it be resolved by making:
> #define list_entry_is_head(pos, head, member) ((pos) == NULL)
> and double-checking that it isn't used anywhere else (except in
> the list macros themselves).
Well, yes, except for the fact that then the name
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 01 March 2022 23:03
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:58 PM David Laight wrote:
> >
> > Can it be resolved by making:
> > #define list_entry_is_head(pos, head, member) ((pos) == NULL)
> > and double-checking that it isn't used anywhere else (except in
> > the list macros
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:19 PM David Laight wrote:
>
> Having said that there are so few users of list_entry_is_head()
> it is reasonable to generate two new names.
Well, the problem is that the users of list_entry_is_head() may be few
- but there are a number of _other_ ways to check "was that
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> Based on the coccinelle script there are ~480 cases that need fixing
> in total. I'll now finish all of them and then split them by
> submodules as Greg suggested and repost a patch set per submodule.
> Sounds good?
To help with
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:29 PM James Bottomley
wrote:
>
> However, if the desire is really to poison the loop variable then we
> can do
>
> #define list_for_each_entry(pos, head, member) \
> for (pos = list_first_entry(head, typeof(*pos), member);\
>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>
>
> > On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jakob Koschel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The goal of this is to get compiler warnings right? This would indeed be
> >> great.
> >
>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:14:07AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:45:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Really. The "-Wshadow doesn't work on the kernel" is not some new
> > issue, because you have to do completely insane things to the source
> > code to enable it.
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2022, at 1:45 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 2:24 AM Nick Terrell wrote:
>>
>> From: Nick Terrell
>>
>> Hi Linus,
>>
>> I am sending you a pull request to add myself as the maintainer of zstd and
>> update the zstd version in the kernel, which is now 4
> On 1. Mar 2022, at 18:36, Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jakob Koschel
>>> wrote:
The goal of this is to get compiler
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:45:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Really. The "-Wshadow doesn't work on the kernel" is not some new
> issue, because you have to do completely insane things to the source
> code to enable it.
The first big glitch with -Wshadow was with shadowed global variables.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 04:18, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> The bdi congestion tracking in not widely used and will be removed.
>
> Fuse is one of a small number of filesystems that uses it, setting both
> the sync (read) and async (write) congestion flags at what it determines
> are appropriate times.
>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 06:40:04PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>
>
> > On 1. Mar 2022, at 18:36, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:14 AM Kees Cook wrote:
>
> The first big glitch with -Wshadow was with shadowed global variables.
> GCC 4.8 fixed that, but it still yells about shadowed functions. What
> _almost_ works is -Wshadow=local.
Heh. Yeah, I just have long memories of "-Wshadow was a
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 01:06:57PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>
>
> > On 28. Feb 2022, at 12:20, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:08:18PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote:
> >> If the list does not contain the expected element, the value of
> >> list_for_each_entry() iterator will
ping,
On 2022/2/25 11:02, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2022/2/3 22:57, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2022/2/3 9:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 01/29, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2022/1/29 8:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 01/28, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2022/1/28 5:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 01/27, Chao Yu wrote:
Quoted from Jing Xia's
On 2022/2/26 2:36, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 02/25, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2022/2/9 7:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
With this patch, "-g android" enables usr/grp/proj quota by default.
1) -O quota : enables usr/grp
2) -O project_quota -O extra_attr : enabled prj
3) -O quota -O project_quota -O extra_attr :
On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2022/3/1 12:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > 1. waiting for f2fs_evict_inode
> > [ 5560.043945] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0xac/0xf0
> > [ 5560.045540] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30
> > [ 5560.047036] find_inode_fast+0x6d/0xc0
> > [ 5560.048473] iget_locked+0x79/0x230
> >
On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2022/3/1 12:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > 1. waiting for f2fs_evict_inode
> > > [ 5560.043945] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0xac/0xf0
> > > [ 5560.045540] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30
> > > [ 5560.047036] find_inode_fast+0x6d/0xc0
> > >
On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2022/3/1 12:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > 1. waiting for f2fs_evict_inode
> > > > [ 5560.043945] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0xac/0xf0
> > > > [ 5560.045540] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30
> > > > [
On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> ping,
>
> On 2022/2/25 11:02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2022/2/3 22:57, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2022/2/3 9:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > On 01/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > On 2022/1/29 8:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On 01/28, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022/1/28
On 2022/3/2 13:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2022/3/1 12:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
1. waiting for f2fs_evict_inode
[ 5560.043945] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0xac/0xf0
[ 5560.045540] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30
[
On 2022/3/1 12:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
1. waiting for f2fs_evict_inode
[ 5560.043945] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0xac/0xf0
[ 5560.045540] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30
[ 5560.047036] find_inode_fast+0x6d/0xc0
[ 5560.048473] iget_locked+0x79/0x230
[ 5560.049933] f2fs_iget+0x27/0x1200 [f2fs]
[
On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 04:18, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> If ->readpages doesn't process all the pages, then it is best to act as
> though they weren't requested so that a subsequent readahead can try
> again.
> So:
> - remove any 'ahead' pages from the page cache so they can be loaded
> with
> On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>
>> The goal of this is to get compiler warnings right? This would indeed be
>> great.
>
> Yes, so I don't mind having a one-time patch that has been gathered
> using some
27 matches
Mail list logo
