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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:30:25 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> To: Robin Holt <holt@....com> Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 05:06:18PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > your last patch is one of considerable thing. but it has one weakness. > > in general "ifdef x86" is wrong idea. almost minor architecture don't > > have sufficient tester. the difference against x86 often makes bug. > > Then, unnecessary difference is hated by much people. > > Let me start by saying I can barely understand this entire email. > I appreciate that english is a second language for you and you are > doing a service to the linux community with your contributions despite > the language barrier. I commend you for your efforts. I do ask that if > there was more information contained in your email than I am replying too, > please reword it so I may understand. > > IIRC, my last patch made it an arch header option to set zone_reclaim_mode > to any value it desired while leaving the default as 1. The only arch > that changed the default was x86 (both 32 and 64 bit). That seems the > least disruptive to existing users. > > > So, I think we have two selectable choice. > > > > 1. remove zone_reclaim default setting completely (this patch) > > 2. Only PowerPC and IA64 have default zone_reclaim_mode settings, > > other architecture always use zone_reclaim_mode=0. > > Looks like 2 is the inverse of my patch. That is fine as well. The only > reason I formed the patch with the default of 1 and override on x86 is > it was one less line of change and one less file. OK. I appreciate we reach good agreement. I'll try make patch (2) in this week end. Thanks. -- 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