| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130508184817.4271.72594@localhost.localdomain> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:48:17 -0400 From: Chris Mason <clmason@...ionio.com> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SLAB changes for v3.10 Quoting Christoph Lameter (2013-05-08 14:25:49) > On Wed, 8 May 2013, Chris Mason wrote: > > > This patch fixes things for me, but to maintain the rules from > > Christoph's patch, kmalloc_caches[2] should have been created whenever > > kmalloc_caches[7] was done. > > Not necessary. The early slab bootstrap must create some slab caches of > specific sizes, it will only use those during very early bootstrap. > > The later creation of the array must skip those. > > You correctly moved the checks out of the if (!kmalloc_cacheS()) > condition so that the caches are created properly. But if the ordering is required at all, why is it ok to create cache 2 after cache 6 instead of after cache 7? IOW if we can safely do cache 2 after cache 6, why can't we just do both cache 1 and cache 2 after the loop? -chris -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists