linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/10] (no)bootmem bits for 3.5

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: <20120508175748.GA11906@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Tue, 8 May 2012 19:57:48 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Gavin Shan <shangw@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] (no)bootmem bits for 3.5

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:01:42AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:41:13PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Hi Johannes.
> > 
> > > here are some (no)bootmem fixes and cleanups for 3.5.  Most of it is
> > > unifying allocation behaviour across bootmem and nobootmem when it
> > > comes to respecting the specified allocation address goal and numa.
> > > 
> > > But also refactoring the codebases of the two bootmem APIs so that we
> > > can think about sharing code between them again.
> > 
> > Could you check up on CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM use in bootmem.c too?
> > x86 no longer uses bootmem.c
> > avr define it - but to n.
> > 
> > So no-one is actually using this anymore.
> > I have sent patches to remove it from Kconfig for both x86 and avr.
> > 
> > I looked briefly at cleaning up bootmem.c myslef - but I felt not
> > familiar enough with the code to do the cleanup.
> > 
> > I did not check your patchset - but based on the shortlog you
> > did not kill HAVE_ARCH_BOOTMEM.
> 
> It was used on x86-32 numa to try all bootmem allocations from node 0
> first (see only remaining definition of bootmem_arch_preferred_node),
> which AFAICS nobootmem no longer respects.
> 
> Shouldn't this be fixed instead?
I do not know. Tejun / Yinghai?

	Sam
--
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/