linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] make automatic device

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:	Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:36:03 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] make automatic device_id generation possible

On (03/05/15 10:17), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > user defined id support comes at a price of ~10 lines of code, or even
> > less. we waste much more code to show ->stats, and not all of them are
> > of any real use, to be fair. that just said, that dropping user defined
> > id is not a great deal. ok, let's see if we can come up with anything by
> > the end of this day and I'll send out a removal patch if nothing pop up.
> 
> As I told you, I'm never against. I just want to know usecase.
> If we don't support it from the beginnig, someday, someone will complain
> and we can catch up the usecase and support it easily with adding 10 line code.
> 

sure, no problem. that's a good question -- should we support user
defined ids or not. thanks for asking.

I can imagine that that static num_devices limitation (along with max
num_devices == 32) was sort of a show stopper for some users (or an
unnecessary complication at least), like in 'my now favorite' build
server example :)

	-ss

> This dyanmic add/revmove feature proves the idea. :)
> Main reason I finally decided dynamic device management feature was
> someone complained he should do rmmod/insmod zram.ko to increase
> the number of zram device in runtime but one of zram device was
> used for swap, which was hard to swapoff due to small memory
> so there was no way to increase the number of zram device.
> It appeals a lot to support dynamic zram creating and finally I catch up
> the usecase. ;-)
> 
--
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/