linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] generic-smp: remove kmalloc usage

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: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902161636480.21686@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:40:54 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] generic-smp: remove kmalloc usage

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Now that there is no strict need for kmalloc anymore, and nobody seems to
> rely it for the queueing behaviour, remove it.

Peter, I really hate this series.

Why?

In 1/4 you introduce that cfd RCU thing, and then in 2/4 you remove it 
again.

I realize that you seem to do that in order to do some incremental 
step-wise changes, but quite frankly, it just complicates the whole series 
and makes the patches much harder to read and follow.

Why don't you just combine patches 1&2? That split-up seems to just 
confuse things. At least it confuses me. Why does it happen?

		Linus
--
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/