linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/21] libnvdimm: non-volatile memory devices

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: <CAPcyv4j-f+vSF5QXNy5RrqW-pXNg1dKeusGvcBFhz8ygLnSFig@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:28:07 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	jmoyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Nicholas Moulin <nicholas.w.moulin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/21] libnvdimm: non-volatile memory devices

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> Still not a big fan of the spec, but I guess this is a mosly reasonable
> implementation now.
>
> So for patches 1-16:
>
> Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

Thanks Christoph!

> The btt integration still needs a proper patch split and review, and

Ok, I'll split all the patches that are dependent on ->rw_bytes() to
their own series, and break out the introduction of ->rw_bytes() to be
patch1 of that series.

> I still detest the mess with the test moduly by heart.

The only remaining risk I see of merging this is that it requires
someone making changes to either the libnvdimm implementation or the
routines being mocked (ioremap, __request_region, etc...) to think
through the implications to the unit test.  That's a maintenance
burden given that mocked interfaces are deliberately working around
base assumptions.  At a minimum I need to document what rules the
__wrap_* routines in tools/testing/nvdimm/test/iomap.c are violating
and why.

I'm not convinced that the maintenance burden overshadows the benefit
of having this infrastructure readily available.  It is the primary
reason we've been able to iterate the code with confidence at this
velocity and magnitude of feedback.
--
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/