linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)

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: <20150330155033.2cdc8d9a4a2c4ecf6a9ad154@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:50:33 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@...net.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache
 only)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:40:16 -0400 Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:40:20 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:04:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> > mm...  I don't think we should be adding placeholders to the kernel API
> >> > to support code which hasn't been written, tested, reviewed, merged,
> >> > etc.  It's possible none of this will ever happen and we end up with a
> >> > syscall nobody needs or uses.  Plus it's always possible that during
> >> > this development we decide the pwrite2() interface needs alteration but
> >> > it's too late.
> >> >
> >> > What would be the downside of deferring pwrite2() until it's all
> >> > implemented?
> >>
> >> It _is_ implemented.  I just decided to submit it separately as Miklos
> >> already has to deal with enough bikeshedding for his feature that I
> >> don't want to put the burden of dealing with the BS for the one I wrote
> >> on him.
> >
> > afacit the only difference between this pwritev2() and the existing
> > pwritev() is that pwritev2() interprets pos==-1 as "current position",
> > which duplicates writev()?
> >
> > Unless I've missed something, there's no point in merging this
> > pwritev2() and it would be better to separate this syscall out into a
> > pwritev2() patchset which can be considered and merged separately.  For
> > the reasons described above.
> >
> 
> At the LSF/MM session, the agreement form the active participants
> (James Bottomley, Ted Tso, Christoph, and I forget the last guy's
> name) that we should ship both syscalls in the first patch.

I was over in the mm session and probably wouldn't have objected either
because because you can't sit down, think, carefully inspect code and
evaluate arguments in such a context.

I've explained my reasoning.  If there's something wrong with that
reasoning or if there are contradictory reasons which I'm not aware of
then let's hear them!
--
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/