linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging

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: <20120814232917.GA2399@barrios>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:29:18 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Robert Jennings <rcj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging

Hi Seth,

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:18:57PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
> > memory compression.  The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
> > have been promoted to mainline in 3.0 and 3.5.  This patchset
> > promotes zcache from the staging tree to mainline.
> > 
> > Based on the level of activity and contributions we're seeing from a
> > diverse set of people and interests, I think zcache has matured to the
> > point where it makes sense to promote this out of staging.
> 
> I am wondering if there is any more discussion to be had on
> the topic of promoting zcache.  The discussion got dominated
> by performance concerns, but hopefully my latest performance
> metrics have alleviated those concerns for most and shown
> the continuing value of zcache in both I/O and runtime savings.
> 
> I'm not saying that zcache development is complete by any
> means. There are still many improvements that can be made.
> I'm just saying that I believe it is stable and beneficial
> enough to leave the staging tree.
> 
> Seth

I want to do some clean up on zcache but I'm okay after it is promoted
if Andrew merge it. But I'm not sure he doesn't mind it due to not good code
quality which includes not enough comment, not good variable/function name,
many code duplication of ramster).
Anyway, I think  we should unify common code between zcache and ramster
before promoting at least. Otherwise, it would make code refactoring hard
because we always have to touch both side for just a clean up. It means
zcache contributor for the clean up should know well ramster too and it's
not desirable.


> 
--
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/