linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] mm: frontswap: split out __frontswap_unuse

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: <1339425523.4999.56.camel@lappy>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2012 16:38:43 +0200
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	konrad@...nok.org
Cc:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] mm: frontswap: split out
 __frontswap_unuse_pages

On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 10:31 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > I'm not sure of the correct kernel style but I like the fact
> > that assert_spin_locked both documents the lock requirement and tests
> > it at runtime.
> 
> The kernel style is to do "
> 3) Separate your changes.
> 
> Separate _logical changes_ into a single patch file.
> "
> 
> So it is fine, but it should be in its own patch. 

It is one logical change: I've moved a block of code that has to be
locked in the swap mutex into it's own function, adding the spinlock
assertion isn't new code, nor it relates to any new code. It's there to
assert that what happened before still happens now.

--
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/