linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705021903320.20615@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2007 19:08:38 +0100 (BST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub

On Wed, 2 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> But these are arch specific problems. We could use 
> ARCH_USES_SLAB_PAGE_STRUCT to disable SLUB on these platforms.

As a quick hack, sure.  But every ARCH_USES_SLAB_PAGE_STRUCT
diminishes the testing SLUB will get.  If the idea is that we're
going to support both SLAB and SLUB, some arches with one, some
with another, some with either, for more than a single release,
then I'm back to saying SLUB is being pushed in too early.
I can understand people wanting pluggable schedulers,
but pluggable slab allocators?

Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/