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:	Mon, 26 May 2008 22:39:54 +0200
From:	Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net
To:	nicholas.dokos@...com
Cc:	cmm@...ibm.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Soft lockups in mballoc code 

Nick Dokos writes:
 > No, I am not seeing them any more

Good!

 > So it seems to be entirely caused by my bad choice of a config file.

I don't see anything wrong with what you did.

 > As a matter of good practice, is defconfig+ext4dev the best way of
 > producing a kernel for ext4 testing purposes?

No, I don't think so. I have used it because this is reasonably fast
to compile.

I don't think there is a best single .config for testing ext4 (but
let's see what other think).

Using .config from distributions is fine since it is the way some
users get ext4 (that's why I tested Fedora 9 too).
Using other ways is also fine since it increases testing coverage.

 > Are there any settings
 > that should be added/delete/modified from the default?

Yes, for example, defconfig lacks options from the "Kernel Hacking"
section for testability which are mentionned e.g. in
Documentation/SubmitChecklist.

-- 
solofo


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists