linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 0/5] LZO and swap write failure patches for -mm

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

Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:45:55 +0100
From:	Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...nedhand.com>
To:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>
Cc:	akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/5] LZO and swap write failure patches for -mm

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:37 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Yes - most of that work, IIRC, is related to the alignment issues that Herr 
> Oberhumer noted. As it stands, the alternative does work well for a large 
> number of the platforms that the kernel supports. With a little Kconfig magic 
> it could be made available *only* for those platforms that it currently 
> supports. Then people can help work on the alignment issues - possibly by 
> providing platform conditional code.

My patch was actually written with ARM machines in mind and has been
extremely well tested on it. A version which doesn't run on ARM is not
acceptable. Its also ironic that "platform conditional code" is what a
lot of that bloat you're so keen to remove is about.

> I'm not familiar with the zlib code, but it was included a long time ago - 
> since zlib was included I'm pretty certain that if it had been proposed today 
> it would have been NACK'd for the style violations and bloat.

Adrian's covered this. I also know how hard updating something like zlib
is (I was the last person to do it).

> You can take the time to produce a patch and spread FUD about the speed of a 
> competing patches code but you don't have the time to work on fixing a 
> cleaner implementation? I'll admit that actually working on fixing problems 
> in code can take more time, but still - the time taken for those pursuits 
> *could* have been spent actually working on fixing the problems.

I *have* spent some time on it.

My speed comments were actually pretty positive. Yes, I screwed up one
of the benchmarks (as have others proving its easily done) but I did
admit to it. My others were fair comment and some issues were addressed
as a result (but not all).

I'm going to stop here. I don't agree with the rest of your email and
you've a distorted view of whats been said.

Regards,

Richard

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/