linux-kernel - Re: Ping? RE: [GIT PULL] mm/vfs/fs:cleancache for 2.6.37 merge window

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: <20101030120632.40345d0d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:06:32 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: Ping? RE: [GIT PULL] mm/vfs/fs:cleancache for 2.6.37 merge
 window

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:

> Ping?  I hope you are still considering this.  If not or if
> there are any questions I can answer, please let me know.

What's happened here is that the patchset has gone through its
iterations and a few people have commented and then after a while,
nobody had anything to say about the code so nobody said anything more.

But silence doesn't mean acceptance - it just means that nobody had
anything to say.

I think I looked at the earlier iterations, tried to understand the
point behind it all, made a few code suggestions and eventually tuned
out.  At that time (and hence at this time) I just cannot explain to
myself why we would want to merge this code.

All new code is a cost/benefit decision.  The costs are pretty well
known: larger codebase, more code for us and our "customers" to
maintain and support, etc.  That the code pokes around in vfs and
various filesystems does increase those costs a little.

But the extent of the benefits to our users aren't obvious to me.  The
code is still xen-specific, I believe?  If so, that immediately reduces
the benefit side by a large amount simply because of the reduced
audience.

We did spend some time trying to get this wired up to zram so that the
feature would be potentially useful to *all* users, thereby setting the
usefulness multiplier back to 1.0.  But I don't recall that anything
came of this?

I also don't know how useful the code is to its intended
micro-audience: xen users!

So can we please revisit all this from the top level?  Jeremy, your
input would be valuable.  Christoph, I recall that you had technical
objections - can you please repeat those?

It's the best I can do to kick this along, sorry.
--
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/