linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] cgroups: forbid pre

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]

Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:48:34 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] cgroups: forbid pre_destroy callback to fail

On Thu 25-10-12 10:42:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Michal.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:37:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am not sure I understand you here. So are you suggesting
> > s/BUG_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE/ in this patch?
> 
> Oh, no, I meant that we can do upto patch 3 of this series and then
> follow up with proper cgroup core update and then stack further
> memcg cleanups on top.

I thought the later cleanups would be on top of the series.

> > > Let's create a cgroup branch and build things there.  I don't think
> > > cgroup changes are gonna be a single patch and expect to see at least
> > > some bug fixes afterwards and don't wanna keep them floating separate
> > > from other cgroup changes.  
> > 
> > > mm being based on top of -next, that should work, right?
> > 
> > Well, a tree based on -next is, ehm, impractical. I can create a bug on
> > top of my -mm git branch (where I merge your cgroup common changes) for
> > development and then when we are ready we can send it as a series and
> > push it via Andrew. Would that work for you?
> > Or we can push the core part via Andrew, wait for the merge and work on
> > the follow up cleanups later?
> > It is not like the follow up part is really urgent, isn't it? I would
> > just like the memcg part settled first because this can potentially
> > conflict with other memcg work.
> 
> Argh... can we pretty *please* just do a plain git branch?  I don't
> care where it is but I want to be able to pull it into cgroup core and

Hohumm, I have tried to apply the series on top of Linus' 3.6 and there
were no conflicts so I can create a branch which you can pull into your
cgroup branch (which I can then merge into -mm git tree).
This would however mean that those patches wouldn't fly through Andrew's
tree. Is this really what we want and what does it give to us?

> yes I do wanna make this happen in this devel cycle.  We've been
> sitting on it far too long waiting for memcg.

I can surely imagine that (for the memcg part) but it needs throughout
review.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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/