linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v9 00/31] use lmb with x86

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: <4BB12C8F.30802@kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:41:19 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	michael@...erman.id.au
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v9 00/31] use lmb with x86

On 03/29/2010 03:32 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>
>> I want to keep the affects to other lmb users to minium at first.
> 
> That's a good plan, but I don't think this is the nicest way to do it.
> 
Too much to be test. so better to keep less impact to current lmb users.
>> and we can merge those functions later.
>>
>> or you insist on merging them in this patchset?
> 
> No I don't insist.
> 
> I _suggest_ that if we want to avoid affecting existing lmb users, then
> the checking logic should go into the existing API, but be #ifdef'ed for
> now - eg. CONFIG_DYNAMIC_LMB or something. That way you avoid affecting
> existing users (more or less), but you don't add a new API that you then
> have to remove later.
> 
> Having said that I don't think it really does affect existing users that
> much. We still have the statically defined region arrays, and they're
> still the same size, so sparc and powerpc should never need to resize,
> except on machines where we currently run out of space in the array
> anyway.

dynamic region array for lmb.memory and lmb.reserved, actually is only need when plan to use
lmb to replace bootmem code.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/