linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] QoS params patch

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: <20070927151718.GD25718@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:17:18 -0700
From:	Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] QoS params patch

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:18:21PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 10:53:03PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:40:20 PDT, Mark Gross said:
> > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc8/kernel/Makefile	2007-09-26 13:54:54.000000000 -0700
> > > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc8-qos/kernel/Makefile	2007-09-26 14:06:38.000000000 -
> > 0700
> > > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> > >  	    rcupdate.o extable.o params.o posix-timers.o \
> > >  	    kthread.o wait.o kfifo.o sys_ni.o posix-cpu-timers.o mutex.o \
> > >  	    hrtimer.o rwsem.o latency.o nsproxy.o srcu.o die_notifier.o \
> > > -	    utsname.o
> > > +	    utsname.o qos_params.o
> > 
> > So I don't get a choice in the matter if I will be dragging this thing
> > around in my kernel, even if I have no intention of using the functionality?
> > 
> You don't get that option with latency.c either at the moment, and it's
> arguable whether it's even worth it. The more curious thing is that while
> this qos params seems to be an evolution of Arjan's latency.c (and the
> drivers that are using it are updated in the rest of the patch set),
> latency.c itself is still compiled in. Is this an oversight, or was it
> intentional? One set of latency hinting APIs only, please :-)

It was intentional to compile latnecy.c in (and hence qos_parms is
starting off doing the same thing)  

I agree, "there can be only be one".  (couldn't resist)

I split the patch set up this first patch puts in the qos_param.c and
the second patch yanks latency.c replacing things with its interfaces.

--mgross
-
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/