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: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:50:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, ngupta@...are.org Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jeremy@...p.org, hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk, JBeulich@...ell.com, chris.mason@...cle.com, kurt.hackel@...cle.com, dave.mccracken@...cle.com, npiggin@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com Subject: RE: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview > > Maybe incremental development is better? Stabilize and refine > existing > > code and gradually move to async API, if required in future? > > Incremental development is fine, especially for ramzswap where the APIs > are all internal. I'm more worried about external interfaces, these > stick around a lot longer and if not done right they're a pain forever. Well if you are saying that your primary objection to the frontswap synchronous API is that it is exposed to modules via some EXPORT_SYMBOLs, we can certainly fix that, at least unless/until there are other pseudo-RAM devices that can use it. Would that resolve your concerns? -- 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