linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dmatest: make module parameters writable

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, 08 Aug 2013 11:42:06 +0300
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Dan Williams <djbw@...com>
Cc:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	"Blin, Jerome" <jerome.blin@...el.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dmatest: make module parameters writable

On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 17:49 +0000, Dan Williams wrote: 
> 
> On 7/31/13 7:28 AM, "Andy Shevchenko" <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 18:36 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> The debugfs interface brought a copy of the test case parameters. This
> >>makes
> >> different set of values under /sys/module/dmatest/parameters/ and
> >> /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/. The user might be confused by the
> >>divergence of
> >> values.
> >> 
> >> The proposed solution in this patch is to make module parameters
> >>writable and
> >> remove them from the debugfs. Though we're still using debugfs to
> >>control test
> >> runner and getting results.
> >> 
> >> Documentation part is updated accordingly.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Suggested-by: Dan Williams <djbw@...com>
> >
> >Dan, do you have any comments against this series?
> >I'd like to have this incorporated into v3.12.
> 
> I like this direction, and these can go in as is.  

So, could it be considered as your ACK?
If so, I think it would be better to push it early to be in time for
v3.12

> But I think with a bit
> more work we can eventually trim the Œresults' file and the
> thread_{add|get}_result infrastructure.  Ideally we could move all result
> reporting to ftrace and let a module parameter control which errors are
> reported.
> 
> However, unless I missed it, I don¹t see this support[1] upstream yet.
> 
> 
> --
> Dan
> 
> [1]: https://lwn.net/Articles/432186/
> 

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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/