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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1403584890.3140.18.camel@dabdike>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:41:30 -0400
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 17:27 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 7:43:07 AM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking
> >>> interacted with writeback.  It's not new, it was one of the major 
> things
> >>> brought up at LSF 14 months ago, so you weren't just assigned this.
> >  ...
> >> 
> >> [citation needed]
> >
> > Really?  I was there; I remember and it's in my notes of the discussion.
> > However, it's also in Jon's at paragraph 6 if you need to refer to
> > something to refresh your memory.
> 
> You have such a wonderfully charismatic way of providing citations.

Well, it's factual, as I presume you have now discovered.

> > However, when it was spotted isn't the issue; how we add tux3 without a
> > large maintenance burden on writeback is, as I carefully explained in
> > the rest of the email you cut.
> 
> You are doing a fine job of proving to the world that LKML has become
> a toxic waste dump. CC to LKML removed for obvious reasons.

Please don't drop the Mailing list cc; that's where the debate actually
happens and where others can see it.

>  Please let this be the end of the unhelpful rhetoric that does none of us any
> good, especially you.

Telling you factually what the issue is isn't rhetoric.  Your Ad Hominem
reply, of course, is rhetoric but I don't need to bother engaging with
your rhetorical technique because I'm still arguing the facts: proving
that page forking can be integrated into writeback without adding to the
maintenance burden is a big issue for tux3.  We're all still waiting for
the patches you were going to produce showing how this could be done.

James


--
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/