linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V8 3/4] mm: frontswap: add swap hooks and extend try_to

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: <52b5aee3-f424-42ae-830f-d1cf64fa49ef@default>
Date:	Thu, 8 Sep 2011 08:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jeremy@...p.org,
	hughd@...gle.com, ngupta@...are.org,
	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, JBeulich@...ell.com,
	Kurt Hackel <kurt.hackel@...cle.com>, npiggin@...nel.dk,
	riel@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org, matthew@....cx,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	jackdachef@...il.com, cyclonusj@...il.com, levinsasha928@...il.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH V8 3/4] mm: frontswap: add swap hooks and extend
 try_to_unuse

> From: Andrew Morton [mailto:akpm@...ux-foundation.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:27 PM
> To: Dan Magenheimer
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 3/4] mm: frontswap: add swap hooks and extend try_to_unuse
> 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:49:29 -0700
> Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:
> 
> > -static int try_to_unuse(unsigned int type)
> > +int try_to_unuse(unsigned int type, bool frontswap,
> 
> Are patches 2 and 3 in the wrong order?

No, they've applied in that order and built after each patch
properly for well over a year.  At a minimum, frontswap.h must
be created before patch 3of4, though I suppose the introduction
of frontswap.c could be after patch 3of4... Note that frontswap.c
(which calls try_to_unuse()) is non-functional (and isn't even built)
until after patch 4of4 is applied.

There is enough interdependency between the four parts
that perhaps it should all be a single commit.  I split
it up for reviewer's convenience but apparently different
reviewers use different review processes than I anticipated. :-}

Bottom line though: yes, bisecting at any point in the
patchset does work properly.

Dan
--
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/