linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert block layer to bioset_init()/mempool

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, 30 May 2018 15:37:07 -0400
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        hch@...radead.org, colyli@...e.de, darrick.wong@...cle.com,
        clm@...com, bacik@...com, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, neilb@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] convert block layer to bioset_init()/mempool_init()

On Wed, May 30 2018 at  2:55pm -0400,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:

> On 5/30/18 7:36 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > So revisiting this patchset: are you inclined to take these changes (I
> > assume yes)?  If so, what would you need in order to get them staged for
> > 4.18?  I'll start with offering my review in reply to the DM patch.  I'd
> > much prefer to see this level of change go in sooner rather than later.
> 
> Yeah I'd like to take the changes, but we might have to wait for
> 4.19 at this point. It'd certainly help to have the dm bits reviewed,
> as they are some of the larger ones. The grunt of the others are mostly
> trivial and smaller in scope.

I _really_ would like to see this land for 4.18.  It'll avoid downstream
backport problems (due to all the churn in this patchset).

As I'm sure you've seen I reviewed and Acked-by the DM patch.

I mentioned I've been chatting with Kent, he is available if anything
needs a v2 for whatever reason.

Would you be OK adding a single sentence description to each driver's
patch header (rather than leaving empty like how Kent submitted)?  Or
should Kent resubmit the entire set with that boilerplate header for
each patch?