linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <31860.1259680388@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:13:08 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	steved@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
	nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLOW_WORK: Fix the CONFIG_MODULES=n case

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

> this slow_work_wait_for_items() function should move into the #ifdef 
> block too.

I disagree: I want to keep the variable declaration blocks small; I'd rather
not even put the inline functions in there that I did.  I only did that because
you wanted the #ifdef count reduced.

> In terms of .32 i guess it's OK too and the fix is needed - but i'd really
> not have done even the preceding changes - why again did we need
> /proc/slow_work_rq via 8fba10a

The slow_work_rq debugging interface is not strictly necessary, but it proved a
useful debugging tool.  I emailed Linus before I went on holiday and asked if
he was willing to take these not-strictly-necessary patches on which other
patches were built, or whether he'd prefer me to drop those patches and adjust
the rest.

> and why did it have to happen right before the final kernel?

Because it did.  That's when I finished my set of patches and published them
before going on holiday for a week - and that in turn was related to when I
came up with a better test case.  Sometimes coincidences do happen.

> If then it should have been done in debugfs - we dont need yet another 
> /proc ABI.

Possibly.  That just means we have a debugfs ABI instead of a proc ABI - it
needs maintaining either way.  On the other hand, it can be moved there easily
and the docs changed, and doing so makes a reasonable amount of sense - except
that debugfs isn't normally mounted by at least Fedora for some reason.

David
--
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/