linux-kernel - Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

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, 23 Jul 2007 23:10:15 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
Cc:	"Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	"ck list" <ck@....kolivas.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:01:41 -0700 "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org> wrote:

> So, what do I measure to make this an objective problem report?

Ideal would be to find a reproducible-by-others testcase which does what you
believe to be the wrong thing.

> And if
> I do that (and it shows a positive result), will that be good enough
> to argue for inclusion?

That depends upon whether there are more suitable ways of fixing "the
wrong thing".

There may not be - it could well be that present behaviour
is correct for the testcase, but it leaves the system in the wrong
state for your large workload shift.  In that case, prefetching (ie:
restoring system state approximately to that which prevailed prior to
"testcase") might well be a suitable fix.
-
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/