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]

Message-ID: <20090610205749.GA9321@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:57:49 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
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


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> > > 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.
> 
> Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done.

This tree doesnt conflict (not even with kmecheck) - and the older 
bits you sent against the scheduler and against x86 doesnt apply 
anymore - but they do look scary.

How about this: i can send the scheduler and x86 bits to Linus right 
now, that should make it possible to have a clean base for you and 
no interactions with anything pending?

	Ingo
--
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/