linux-kernel - Re: Generic B-tree implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:20:05 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Vishal Patil <vishpat@...il.com>
Cc:	Horst von Brand <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Generic B-tree implementation

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:08:53 EDT, Vishal Patil said:
> Agreed, however if I am not mistaken B-trees are useful even for
> virtual memory implementation, for example HP-UX uses B-trees for
> managing virtual memory pages.

OK, sounds at least somewhat plausible..

> Also I did not get the statement
> "Build infrastructure (== library) without clear users won't go very
> far on LKML"

Your patch would go a lot further if it came as 2 parts:

PATCH 1/2: Add Generic B-tree implementation
PATCH 2/2: Convert mm/foobar.c to track VM pages using B-trees.

Barring an actual patch 2/2, a *clear* explanation of why it would benefit
a *specific* piece of code so somebody else can do it...

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped