linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] X86/XEN: Merge x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_start and x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_done setup functions and document its semantic

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: <20120822135753.GA30964@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:57:53 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Attilio Rao <attilio.rao@...rix.com>, Ian.Campbell@...rix.com,
	Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] X86/XEN: Merge
 x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_start and
 x86_init.paging.pagetable_setup_done setup functions and document its
 semantic

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:22:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Attilio Rao wrote:
> > Differences with v1:
> > - The patch serie is re-arranged in a way that it helps reviews, following
> >   a plan by Thomas Gleixner
> > - The PVOPS nomenclature is not used as it is not correct
> > - The front-end message is adjusted with feedback by Thomas Gleixner,
> >   Stefano Stabellini and Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 
> 
> This is much simpler to read and review. Just have a look at the
> diffstats of the two series:
> 
>  6 files changed,  9 insertions(+),  8 deletions(-)
>  6 files changed, 11 insertions(+),  9 deletions(-)
>  5 files changed, 50 insertions(+),  2 deletions(-)
>  6 files changed,  2 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
>  1 files changed,  5 insertions(+),  0 deletions(-)
> 
> versus
> 
>  6 files changed, 10 insertions(+),  9 deletions(-)
>  6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>  5 files changed,  3 insertions(+),  3 deletions(-)
>  6 files changed,  4 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>  1 files changed,  5 insertions(+),  0 deletions(-)
> 
> The overall result is basically the same, but it's way simpler to look
> at obvious and well done patches than checking whether a subtle copy
> and paste bug happened in 3/5 of the first version. Copy and paste is
> the #1 cause for subtle bugs. :)
> 
> I'm waiting for the ack of Xen folks before taking it into tip.

I've some extra patches that modify the new "paginig_init" in the Xen
code that I am going to propose for v3.7 - so will have some merge
conflicts. Let me figure that out and also run this set of patches
(and also the previous one .. which I think you didn't have a
chance to look since you were on vacation?) on an overnight
test to make sure there are no fallout.

With the merge issues that are going to prop up (x86 tip tree
and my tree in linux-next) should I just take these patches
in my tree with your Ack? Or should I just ingest your tiptree
in my tree and that way solve the merge issue? What's your
preference!
> 
> Thanks for following up!

Thank you for providing valuable feedback! Much appreciated.
> 
> 	tglx
--
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/