linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

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: <20140619082129.GA4309@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:21:29 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

On Mon 2014-06-16 08:25:54, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 14:41 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:20:39 PM PDT, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Fri 2014-06-13 10:49:39, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >  to sign up for a ridiculous amount of largely thankless, but 
> > perhaps fascinating work. Any volunteers?
> 
> The whole suggestion is a non starter: we can't stage core API changes.
> Even if we worked out how to do that, the staging trees mostly don't get
> the type of in-depth expert review that you need anyway.

Well.. most filesystems do not need any core API changes, right?

> The Cardinal concern has always been the viability page forking and its
> impact on writeback  ... and since writeback is our most difficult an
> performance sensitive area, the bar to changing it is high.

And in this particular case, Daniel was flamed for poor coding style, not
for page forking. So staging/ would actually help him -- he could concentrate
on core changes without being distracted by unimportant stuff.

> When you presented page forking at LSF/MM in 2013, it didn't even stand
> up to basic scrutiny before people found unresolved problems:
> 
> http://lwn.net/Articles/548091/
> 
> After lots of prodding, you finally coughed up a patch for discussion:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/85619
> 
> But then that petered out again.  I can't emphasise enough that
> iterating these threads to a conclusion and reposting interface
> suggestions is the way to proceed on this ... as far as I can tell from
> the discussion, the reviewers were making helpful suggestions, even if
> they didn't like the original interface you proposed.

This obviously needs to be solved, first...
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/