linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX

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, 31 Jul 2019 20:10:39 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <weidu.du@...wei.com>,
        Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES

Hi Xiang,

On 2019/7/31 15:11, Gao Xiang wrote:
> Hi Chao,
> 
> On 2019/7/31 15:05, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES seems a runtime setting
>>> and users have no idea about the change in behaviour.
>>>
>>> Let's remove the setting currently and fold it into code,
>>> turn it into a module parameter if it's really needed.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
>>
>> It's fine to me, but I'd like to suggest to add this as a sys entry which can be
>> more flexible for user to change.
> 
> I think it can be added in the later version, the original view
> from David is that he had question how users using this option.
> 
> Maybe we can use the default value and leave it to users who
> really need to modify this value (real requirement).

I think we need to decide it in this version, otherwise it may face backward
compatibility issue if we change module argument to sys entry later.

Maybe just leave it as an fixed macro is fine, since there is actually no
requirement on this.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
> 
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> .
>