linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: add optional rotating block allocation policy

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]

Message-ID: <20260208195849.GA74984@macsyma.lan>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2026 14:58:49 -0500
From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@....edu>
To: Mario Lohajner <mario_lohajner@...ketmail.com>
Cc: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yang Erkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>, libaokun9@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: add optional rotating block allocation policy

On Sun, Feb 08, 2026 at 12:47:12PM +0100, Mario Lohajner wrote:
> 
> Someone comes forward with a fork, saying:
> “Here is 'my fork'. I believe it may work well for 'some dishes'.”

Give me *proof* that it works on 'some dishes' in terms of actual
perfomance, specifiying real-world workloads, and real-world devices,
and we can talk.  "I believe" is not enough for code that upstream has
to test and maintain indefinitely.  If it works for you, it's open
source.  You can run with an out-of-tree on your systems.  But if you
want us to accept it upstream, you need to provide something more than
"I believe".

Cheers,

					- Ted