linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] [RESEND] Recomputing msgmni on memory add / remove

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: <20080115164440.6DBB.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:07:38 +0900
From:	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Nadia.Derbey@...l.net
Cc:	akmp@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	matthltc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] [RESEND] Recomputing msgmni on memory add / remove

Hello Nadia-san.

> @@ -118,6 +122,10 @@ struct ipc_namespace {
>  	size_t		shm_ctlall;
>  	int		shm_ctlmni;
>  	int		shm_tot;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
> +	struct notifier_block ipc_memory_hotplug;
> +#endif
>  };

I'm sorry, but I don't see why each ipc namespace must have each callbacks
of memory hotplug.
I prefer only one callback for each subsystem, not for each namespace.
In addition, the recompute_msgmni() calculation looks very similar for
all ipc namespace.
Or do you wish each ipc namespace have different callback for the future?

BTW, have you ever tested this patch? If you don't have any test environment
for memory hotplug code, then I'll check it. :-)

Bye.

-- 
Yasunori Goto 

--
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/