linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core

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:	Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:57:12 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] ufd v1 - unsequential O(1) fdmap core

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> 
>>> For example, the recent futex.c changes you did in commit 34f01cc1 
>>> are, and unfortunately there's no better word i can find: plain 
>>> disgusting. You apparently have plopped the 'fshared' code into the 
>>> existing logic via conditionals and have blown up the complexity of 
>>> the functions for no good reason - instead of neatly separating them 
>>> out. You have added _33_ (thirty-three!) new 'if' branches to 
>>> futex.c! The feature you introduced is nice and useful, but for 
>>> heaven's sake please work on cleanliness of your code some more and 
>>> undo that colossal damage ... preferably before working on other 
>>> areas of the kernel.
>> This code took the normal path for inclusion and discussion. If you 
>> find it so horrible, you should complained before. Fact is that you 
>> Acked it :)
> 
> yes, of course, i still think it's a good and nice patch, all things 
> considered =B-)
> 
>> If you wanted to make a joke, I find it quite misplaced.
> 
> no, i just wanted to make a demonstration that one can be pretty nasty 
> in on-lkml replies while being technically correct :-) I think you went 
> a bit overboard in your replies to Davide. Lets move this back into 
> constructive channels, ok? :)

No problem Ingo. I am sorry you and Davide took my remarks so badly.
I tried to be constructive.

You know this stuff got my interest, since I even tested your file 
open-many-fd benchmark :)

I have some machines around with 1.000.000 file descriptors opened by one 
process. I even had to change NR_OPEN (1024*1024 was too small for me :) )

-
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/