linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 0/8] introduce dynamic device creation/removal

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: <20150416003026.GA2018@swordfish>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:30:26 +0900
From:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/8] introduce dynamic device creation/removal

Hello,

On (04/16/15 08:40), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:37:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue,  3 Mar 2015 21:49:42 +0900 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > This patchset introduces zram-control sysfs class, which has two sysfs
> > > attrs:
> > >  - zram_add     -- add a new specific (device_id) zram device
> > >  - zram_remove  -- remove a specific (device_id) zram device
> > 
> > This patchset and the "make automatic device_id generation possible"
> > still appear to have quite a few unresolved issues.  So I'm holding
> > them out of the 4.1 merge window.
> 
> There is no unresolved issue to me. Only one thing I suspect was the
> feature user enforce new device id for dynamic device addition and
> we finally decided to remove the function because there was no useful
> usecase at this point.

I'm not aware of any unresolved issues. am I missing something?


> Sergey and other userland people agreed that
> so Sergey sent a patch [zram: do not let user enforce new device dev_id]
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/6/427
> So, I'm happy with that. Acutally, I wanted to resend whole patchset
> for dynamic device creation/remove patchset with corrected version
> (ie, remove user enforce new device id) to avoid confusion but didn't
> said it to Sergey. It was my bad.
> 
> Sergey, Could you resend this patchset without user's enforce device id
> function based on new -rc1?

ok, agree. I'll re-submit later today.


	-ss

> > 
> > Unfortunately these were the first-arriving zram patches, so the later
> > ones required quite a bit of mangling.  Hopefully I got it all right.
> > 
> > This was all a bit disruptive.  Please let's not leave major patchsets
> > floating about in an incomplete/unresolved state for week after week?
> 
> I will keep it in mind.
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
> 
--
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/