linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

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:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:30:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3


* Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:37:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > What happened to Nick's cleanup patch to do_page_fault (a month or two 
> > > ago? I complained about some of the issues in his first version and 
> > > asked for some further cleanups, but I think that whole discussion ended 
> > > with him saying "I am going to add those changes that you suggested (in 
> > > fact, I already have)".
> > > 
> > > And then I didn't see anything further. Maybe I just missed the end 
> > > result. Or maybe we have it in some -mm branch or something?
> > 
> > they would have been in tip/x86/mm and would be upstream now had Nick 
> > re-sent a v2 series but that never happened. I think they might have 
> > fallen victim to a serious attention deficit caused by the SLQB patch ;-)
> 
> Well, I already added Linus's suggestions but didn't submit it because 
> there was a bit of work going on in that file as far as I could see, 
> both in the x86 tree and in -mm:
> 
> (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.28-rc2/2.6.28-rc2-mm1/broken-out/mm-invoke-oom-killer-from-page-fault.patch)
> 
> It isn't a big deal to resolve either way, but I don't want to make 
> Andrew's life harder.
> 
> [Yes OK now I'm the guilty one of pushing in an x86 patch not via the 
> x86 tree ;) This one is easy to break in pieces, but I didn't want to 
> create a dependency between the trees]

That's OK, and the oom-killer patch impact on x86 was incidental, so it 
was correct to push it via -mm IMO.

Now that the bits that went in via Andrew's tree upstream, there's a 
handful of new conflicts in the patch - so would you mind to (re-)send a 
merged up patch against latest -git?

	Ingo
--
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/