linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 3/4] memblock: limit memory address from memblock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120514165221.GA14426@merkur.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Mon, 14 May 2012 18:52:21 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 3/4] memblock: limit memory address from memblock

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 08:58:54PM +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> Setting kernelcore_max_pfn means all memory which is bigger than
> the boot parameter is allocated as ZONE_MOVABLE. So memory which
> is allocated by memblock also should be limited by the parameter.
>
> The patch limits memory from memblock.

I see no reason why we need two limits for memblock.
And if we really require two limits then please use a function
to set it.
All other setup/etc. towoards memblock is via function,
and starting to introduce magic variables is confusing.

Also new stuff in memblock shal have a nice comment
describing the usage. that we in the past has failed to
do so is no excuse.

	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/