linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] cgroups: forbid pre

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:	Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:42:20 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] cgroups: forbid pre_destroy callback to fail

Hey, Michal.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:37:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> I am not sure I understand you here. So are you suggesting
> s/BUG_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE/ in this patch?

Oh, no, I meant that we can do upto patch 3 of this series and then
follow up with proper cgroup core update and then stack further
memcg cleanups on top.

> > Let's create a cgroup branch and build things there.  I don't think
> > cgroup changes are gonna be a single patch and expect to see at least
> > some bug fixes afterwards and don't wanna keep them floating separate
> > from other cgroup changes.  
> 
> > mm being based on top of -next, that should work, right?
> 
> Well, a tree based on -next is, ehm, impractical. I can create a bug on
> top of my -mm git branch (where I merge your cgroup common changes) for
> development and then when we are ready we can send it as a series and
> push it via Andrew. Would that work for you?
> Or we can push the core part via Andrew, wait for the merge and work on
> the follow up cleanups later?
> It is not like the follow up part is really urgent, isn't it? I would
> just like the memcg part settled first because this can potentially
> conflict with other memcg work.

Argh... can we pretty *please* just do a plain git branch?  I don't
care where it is but I want to be able to pull it into cgroup core and
yes I do wanna make this happen in this devel cycle.  We've been
sitting on it far too long waiting for memcg.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/