> > Optimize directory access based on exfat_entry_set_cache.
> > - Hold bh instead of copied d-entry.
> > - Modify bh->data directly instead of the copied d-entry.
> > - Write back the retained bh instead of rescanning the d-entry-set.
> > And
> > - Remove unused cache related definitions.
> >
> Optimize directory access based on exfat_entry_set_cache.
> - Hold bh instead of copied d-entry.
> - Modify bh->data directly instead of the copied d-entry.
> - Write back the retained bh instead of rescanning the d-entry-set.
> And
> - Remove unused cache related definitions.
>
> Signed-off
> >>> > In order to prevent illegal accesses to bh and dentries, it
> >>> would be better to check validation for num and bh.
> >>>
> >>> There is no new error checking for same reason as above.
> >>>
> >>> I'll try to add error checking to this v2 patch.
> >>> Or is it better to add error
> +struct exfat_dentry *exfat_get_dentry_cached(
> + struct exfat_entry_set_cache *es, int num);
You used a single tab for the continuing line of the prototype here.
We usually use two tabs for this.
> struct exfat_entry_set_cache *exfat_get_dentry_set(struct super_block *sb,
> - s
> In order to prevent illegal accesses to bh and dentries, it would
be better to check validation for num and bh.
There is no new error checking for same reason as above.
I'll try to add error checking to this v2 patch.
Or is it better to add error checking in another patch?
The latter:
> 2020-05-27 17:00 GMT+09:00,
> kohada.tetsuh...@dc.mitsubishielectric.co.jp
> :
> > Thank you for your comment.
> >
> > >> +for (i = 0; i < es->num_bh; i++) {
> > >> +if (es->modified)
> > >> +exfat_update_bh(es->sb, es->bh[i], sync);
> > >
> > > Overall, i
2020-05-27 17:00 GMT+09:00,
kohada.tetsuh...@dc.mitsubishielectric.co.jp
:
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> >> +for (i = 0; i < es->num_bh; i++) {
> >> +if (es->modified)
> >> +exfat_update_bh(es->sb, es->bh[i], sync);
> >
> > Overall, it looks good to me.
Thank you for your comment.
>> +for (i = 0; i < es->num_bh; i++) {
>> +if (es->modified)
>> +exfat_update_bh(es->sb, es->bh[i], sync);
>
> Overall, it looks good to me.
> However, if "sync" is set, it looks better to return the result of
> exfat_update_b
> Optimize directory access based on exfat_entry_set_cache.
> - Hold bh instead of copied d-entry.
> - Modify bh->data directly instead of the copied d-entry.
> - Write back the retained bh instead of rescanning the d-entry-set.
> And
> - Remove unused cache related definitions.
>
> Signed-off
9 matches
Mail list logo
