| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150409151316.GO10964@mwanda> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 18:13:16 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> Cc: Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ide: replace GFP_ATOMIC by GFP_KERNEL On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 04:53:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Sorry, my last email was bad. > > > > Splitting patches into logical parts is a bit tricky. Let me try > > explain better. > > > > Every patch should sort of make sense on its own. In the original code > > it's using GFP_ATOMIC but that's because the original API was bad and > > we had no choice. In the 1/1 patch we're using GFP_ATOMIC explicitly > > by choice and it's wrong. In patch 2/2 we fix this problem but we > > shouldn't introduce bad code even if we fix it in later patches. > > But if Quentin's analysis is wrong, then we have to undo the GFP_KERNEL > choice, and with only one patch we end up back at the pci API? We still only have to revert one patch either way. regards, dan carpenter -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists