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:	Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:32:48 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>,
	"npiggin@...nel.dk" <npiggin@...nel.dk>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
	"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] writeback: Reporting dirty thresholds in
 /proc/vmstat

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 09:07:32AM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> > <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > afaict, you and wu agreed /debug/bdi/default/stats is enough good.
> > > why do you change your mention?
> > 
> > I commented on this in the 0/4 email of the bug. I think these belong
> > in /proc/vmstat but I saw they exist in /debug/bdi/default/stats. I
> > figure they will probably not be accepted but I thought it was worth
> > attaching for consideration of upgrading from debugfs to /proc.
> 
> For reviewers view, we are reviewing your patch to merge immediately if all issue are fixed.
> Then, I'm unhappy if you don't drop merge blocker item even though you merely want asking.
> At least, you can make separate thread, no?
> 
> Of cource, wen other user also want to expose via /proc interface, we are resume
> this discusstion gradly.

Michael asked promoting the dirty thresholds from debugfs to /proc.
As a developer I'd interpret the question as: will there be enough
applications/admins using it? If not, we'd better keep it as debugfs.
Otherwise it benefits to do the interface promotion now, because it
will hurt to accumulate many end user dependencies on debugfs over
time..

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists