linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/22] Use allocation flags as an index to the zone watermark

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: <20090423100348.GA26953@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:03:48 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/22] Use allocation flags as an index to the zone
	watermark

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:27:15AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:14 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > Preference of taste really. When I started a conversion to accessors, it
> > > changed something recognised to something new that looked uglier to me.
> > > Only one place cares about the union enough to access is via an array so
> > > why spread it everywhere.
> > 
> > Personally, I'd say for consistency.  Someone looking at both forms
> > wouldn't necessarily know that they refer to the same variables unless
> > they know about the union.
> 
> for just clalification...
> 
> AFAIK, C language specification don't gurantee point same value.
> compiler can insert pad between struct-member and member, but not insert
> into array.
> 

Considering that they are the same type for elements and arrays, I
didn't think padding would ever be a problem.

> However, all gcc version don't do that. I think. but perhaps I missed
> some minor gcc release..
> 
> So, I also like Dave's idea. but it only personal feeling.
> 

The tide is against me on this one :).

How about I roll a patch on top of this set that replaces the union by
calling all sites? I figure that patch will go through a few revisions before
people are happy with the final API. However, as the patch wouldn't change
functionality, I'd like to see this series getting wider testing if possible. The
replace-union-with-single-array patch can be easily folded in then when
it settles.

Sound like a plan?

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/