linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] zcache/ramster rewrite and promotion

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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Aug 2012 20:13:55 +0300
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Konrad Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] zcache/ramster rewrite and promotion

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Dan Magenheimer
<dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> wrote:
> Hmmm.. there's also zbud.c and tmem.c which are critical components
> of both zcache and ramster.  And there are header files as well which
> will need to either be in mm/ or somewhere in include/linux/
>
> Is there a reason or rule that mm/ can't have subdirectories?
>
> Since zcache has at least three .c files plus ramster.c, and
> since mm/frontswap.c and mm/cleancache.c are the foundation on
> which all of these are built, I was thinking grouping all six
> (plus headers) in the same mm/tmem/ subdirectory was a good
> way to keep mm/ from continuing to get more cluttered... not counting
> new zcache and ramster files, there are now 74 .c files in mm/!
> (Personally, I think a directory has too many files in it if
> "ls" doesn't fit in a 25x80 window.)
>
> Thoughts?

There's no reason we can't have subdirectories. That said, I really
don't see the point of having a separate directory called 'tmem'. It
might make sense to have mm/zcache and/or mm/ramster but I suspect
you can just fold the core code in mm/zcache.c and mm/ramster.c by
slimming down the weird Solaris-like 'tmem' abstractions.

                        Pekka
--
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/