linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] taskstats: Cleanup patches

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: <20100929075044.GF4261@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:20:44 +0530
From:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Shailabh Nagar <nagar1234@...ibm.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] taskstats: Cleanup patches

* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> [2010-09-28 13:51:17]:

> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:58 +0200
> Michael Holzheu <holzheu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello Andrew,
> > 
> > It would be great, if you could accept the taskstats cleanup patches that
> > are the prerequisite for the taskstats precise accounting patches. The
> > patches do not add any new functionality. I think they make the code better
> > readable and extensible:
> > * 01/02: taskstats: Separate taskstats commands
> > * 02/02: taskstats: Split fill_pid function
> > 
> 
> Sure.
> 
> I've been sitting on a couple of taskstats patches for ages.  Mel's
> delay-accounting-re-implement-c-for-getdelaysc-to-report-information-on-a-target-command.patch
> and Jeff's delayacct-align-to-8-byte-boundary-on-64-bit-systems.patch.
> 
> I have notes against both of these indicating that Balbir had concerns
> and as far as I know those concerns remain unresolved.  So I'll drop
> those patches now - can you guys please reactivate them if you still
> think we should be making these changes?
> 

Hi, Andrew,

My concern with Jeff's patch was that it might break existing
applications. He clarified it does not, I had requested for a version
bump since the patches change some definitions

I had no concerns (IIRC) with Mel's patches. Mel wanted me to
implement the "-c" option we had earlier.


-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
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/