linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Pin page control subsystem

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, 13 Aug 2013 11:46:42 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, lliubbo@...il.com,
	aquini@...hat.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Tomasz Stanislawski <t.stanislaws@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Pin page control subsystem

Hi Minchan,

On wto, 2013-08-13 at 16:04 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> patch 2 introduce pinpage control
> subsystem. So, subsystems want to control pinpage should implement own
> pinpage_xxx functions because each subsystem would have other character
> so what kinds of data structure for managing pinpage information depends
> on them. Otherwise, they can use general functions defined in pinpage
> subsystem. patch 3 hacks migration.c so that migration is
> aware of pinpage now and migrate them with pinpage subsystem.

I wonder why don't we use page->mapping and a_ops? Is there any
disadvantage of such mapping/a_ops?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
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/