linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Move BTRFS RCU string to common library

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 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:	Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:22:57 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To:	<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
	<linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Move BTRFS RCU string to common library

On 09/19/2014 12:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:47:53AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/19/2014 11:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 02:01:28AM -0700, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>>>> This patch series moves the generic RCU string library used internally by BTRFS
>>>> to be accessible by anyone. It provides printk_in_rcu and
>>>> printk_ratelimited_in_rcu to print these strings. In order to avoid a weird
>>>> inconsistency between the two, the first patch fixes printk_ratelimited so it
>>>> passes on the return value from printk.
>>>>
>>>> The second patch actually moves the RCU string library. Version 2 passes on the
>>>> return values from printk{,_ratelimited} and fixes some style issues.
>>>>
>>>> Omar Sandoval (2):
>>>
>>> For the series:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Fine by me too, Paul, do you want to merge it in?
> 
> I would be happy to.
> 
> Are you thinking in terms of 3.18 or 3.19?  These look OK either way, but
> thought I should check.

Either way is fine with me.  Actually this will have minor conflicts
with my current branch headed for-next, so I can resolve and send as a
stand alone pull.

-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/