linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 block/for-linus] writeback: flush inode cgroup wb switches instead of pinning super

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:29:41 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 block/for-linus] writeback: flush inode cgroup wb
 switches instead of pinning super_block

On Tue 01-03-16 12:50:19, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jens.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> > I queued this up for 4.5, but I'm feeling a bit uneasy about it. But it's
> > either that, or revert 5ff8eaac1636 and fix it for real in 4.6. Jan/Tejun,
> > what do you think?
> 
> Given that this only matters for cgroup writeback cases, this should
> still be fairly low impact, so I don't think it'd matter too much
> whether we fix this in this cycle or for 4.6. However, that also means
> that we're not risking much by doing it in this cycle, so I'd vote for
> doing it now.

Yeah, without CGROUP_WRITEBACK enabled this patch is NOP so I don't care
much when this gets merged.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR