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

Message-ID: <b16eb976-6b02-4ba5-b0b8-219f25c99c0d@default>
Date:	Tue, 7 Aug 2012 06:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
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

> From: Pekka Enberg [mailto:penberg@...nel.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.

I'm not sure I understand... what is Solaris-like about tmem?
And what would you slim down?

While I agree one can often glom three separate 1000-line .c files
into a single 3000-line .c file, I recently spent some time moving
the other direction to, I thought, improve readability.  Do kernel
developers have a preference for huge .c files rather than smaller
logically-separated moderate-sized files in a subdirectory?

Thanks,
Dan
--
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/