linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31

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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:47:07 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mpm@...enic.com,
	npiggin@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
>>
>>>> I already have patches for that but they are against the -tip
>>>> tree so I think we ought to just merge this series to mainline
>>>> and fix everything up in subsystem trees for 2.6.31 proper.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Are there any reasons why the scheduler fixups can't go in
>>> this series? Do they depend on other things in -tip?
>>
>> The patches are rebased to -tip, yeah. I can do a version against
>> your tree if you want but that will mean merge conflicts for Ingo.
>> Hmm?
>
> I'm a tiny bit nervous about the tested-ness of the patches. Such
> stuff rarely works at first try. But it's obviously nice changes.

Yeah, I was thinking of sitting on them until 2.6.32 and put them into
linux-next after the merge window closes. But Linus seems to want them
and with the fallback in place, we can probably fix any fall out quite
easily.

> What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat suggests
> it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be much to conflict,
> except kmemcheck - which has more or less trivial callbacks there.

The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem allocator
uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c.

                        Pekka
--
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/