linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: sl[uo]b: fix misleading comments

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]

Date:	Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:02:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, penberg@...nel.org, mpm@...enic.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: sl[uo]b: fix misleading comments

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:

> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> On x86, SLUB creates and handles <=8192-byte allocations internally.
> It passes larger ones up to the allocator.  Saying "up to order 2" is,
> at best, ambiguous.  Is that order-1?  Or (order-2 bytes)?  Make
> it more clear.
> 
> SLOB commits a similar sin.  It *handles* page-size requests, but the
> comment says that it passes up "all page size and larger requests".
> 
> SLOB also swaps around the order of the very-similarly-named
> KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH and KMALLOC_SHIFT_MAX #defines.  Make it
> consistent with the order of the other two allocators.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
--
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/