linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] mm: frontswap (for 3.2 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:43:09 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, ngupta@...are.org,
	levinsasha928@...il.com, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	JBeulich@...ell.com, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Neo Jia <cyclonusj@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] mm: frontswap (for 3.2 window)

On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 08:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:

> OK, I will then coordinate with sfr to remove it from the linux-next
> tree when (if?) akpm puts the patchset into the -mm tree.

No, that's not necessary.  The current process (you maintain git tree,
it gets included in -next, later gets pulled by Linus) is good.  The
only reason I see for putting such code through -mm would be if there
were significant interactions with other core MM work.

It doesn't matter which route is taken, as long as the code is
appropriately reviewed and tested.

>  But
> since very few linux-mm experts had responded to previous postings
> of the frontswap patchset, I am glad to have a much wider audience
> to discuss it now because of the lkml git-pull request.

At kernel summit there was discussion and overall agreement that we've
been paying insufficient attention to the big-picture "should we
include this feature at all" issues.  We resolved to look more
intensely and critically at new features with a view to deciding
whether their usefulness justified their maintenance burden.  It seems
that you're our crash-test dummy ;) (Now I'm wondering how to get
"cgroups: add a task counter subsystem" put through the same wringer).

I will confess to and apologise for dropping the ball on cleancache and
frontswap.  I was never really able to convince myself that it met the
(very vague) cost/benefit test, but nor was I able to present
convincing arguments that it failed that test.  So I very badly went
into hiding, to wait and see what happened.  What we needed all those
months ago was to have the discussion we're having now.

This is a difficult discussion and a difficult decision.  But it is
important that we get it right.  Thanks for you patience.
--
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/