On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:09 PM, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: [snip] >> >> Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to have fix only in hfsplus_listxattr(). >> It fixes nothing for xattr names. Of course, you can mention name of the patch. :) >> But such partial fix doesn't make sense for me. It will be more clear way to have >> one patch for file names and another patch for xattr names. > > You are entitled to your opinion but I agree with Hin-Tak. This makes perfect sense as it fixes the use of a function which can otherwise cause an erroneous EIO error to be returned from listxattr(). This in itself is a worthwhile fix. Your idea of having to fix everything or nothing at all is frankly quite silly and would mean that hardly anything ever gets fixed... Fixing small problems individually is just fine, especially when they are such obvious ones. > I have another opinion. :) But, of course, it is possible to see on things in different ways. I don't think that topic of splitting fixes between patches is really important. But my suggestion has more logical basis. But, anyway, I suggest to use kmem cache for the case of xattr names instead of kmalloc. Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
