linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Make DRM use the tasklet is-sched API

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:	Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:36:42 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, matthew.wilcox@...com,
	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Make DRM use the tasklet is-sched API

On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 08:15 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:08 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> > > > No sense in having a patch just for this, may as well merge this with
> > > > patch 3 ..
> > > 
> > > Wrong. patch 3 adds the API and this one makes use of it. Stevens split
> > > makes perfectly sense.
> > 
> > Clearly it doesn't make sense to me ;) .. The patches are too small to
> > split them up that way ..
> 
> Daniel, you of all people should know. It's not the size of the patch
> that matters, it's the way you use the patch ;-)
> 

Are you trying to say that you think I have a small patch Steven ;) ?

> No these two patches should *not* be merged to one. If these are sitting
> in -mm, and someone were to change the DRM to not to use the API and
> someone else changed their driver to use the API, then what?  Does
> Andrew keep these maintenance patches on top of each other?

I read this 5 times at least .. I don't think I'm following what you
saying .. It sounds like you might be thinking to many steps ahead tho..

> The split lets the DRM patch be dropped or replaced while keeping the
> API patch around in case another driver uses the API.

Ok, but there are no other users currently, and I think it's unlikely
you'll have others in the future since TASKLET_STATE_SCHED seems more
like an internal part of tasklets .. This drm user seems like the one
aberrant.

> The two patches have two different objectives, even though they are
> related and currently on a 1 to 1 basis. The patches regardless, should
> stay separate.

I'm not convinced yet .. One more stab?

Daniel

-
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/