linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:16:58 -0800
From:	Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To:	Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
Cc:	subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	ltp-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, cmm@...ibm.com,
	y-goto@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem

On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:

<snip>

> +#define MAX_MSGQUEUES  16      /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
> +

It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
maximum ;). A better name might better document what the test is
actually trying to do.

One question I have is whether the unpatched test is still valuable.
Based on my limited knowledge of the test I suspect it's still a correct
test of message queues. If so, perhaps renaming the old test (so it's
not confused with a performance regression) and adding your patched
version is best?

<snip>

Cheers,
	-Matt Helsley

--
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/