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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <84144f020710050219k2460631cjfd556d6eae645887@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:19:28 +0300 From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi> To: "Jens Axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com> Cc: "David Chinner" <dgc@....com>, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, cebbert@...hat.com, willy@...ux.intel.com, clameter@....com, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hch@....de, mel@...net.ie, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com Subject: Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB Hi, On 10/5/07, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote: > I'd like to second Davids emails here, this is a serious problem. Having > a reproducible test case lowers the barrier for getting the problem > fixed by orders of magnitude. It's the difference between the problem > getting fixed in a day or two and it potentially lingering for months, > because email ping-pong takes forever and "the test team has moved on to > other tests, we'll let you know the results of test foo in 3 weeks time > when we have a new slot on the box" just removing any developer > motivation to work on the issue. What I don't understand is that why don't the people who _have_ access to the test case fix the problem? Unlike slab, slub is not a pile of crap that only Christoph can hack on... Pekka - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists