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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 21:31:39 +0530 From: Vaishali Thakkar <vaishali.thakkar@...cle.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com, mike.kravetz@...cle.com, hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com, baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com, dingel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, cmetcalf@...hip.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, james.hogan@...tec.com, linux-metag@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] mm/hugetlb: Fix commandline parsing behavior for invalid hugepagesize On Wednesday 23 March 2016 07:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 23-03-16 17:37:18, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: >> Current code fails to ignore the 'hugepages=' parameters when unsupported >> hugepagesize is specified. With this patchset, introduce new architecture >> independent routine hugetlb_bad_size to handle such command line options. >> And then call it in architecture specific code. >> >> Changes since v1: >> - Separated different architecture specific changes in different >> patches >> - CC'ed all arch maintainers > The hugetlb parameters parsing is a bit mess but this at least makes it > behave more consistently. Feel free to add to all patches > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> > > On a side note. I have received patches with broken threading - the > follow up patches are not in the single thread under this cover email. > I thought this was the default behavior of git send-email but maybe your > (older) version doesn't do that. --thread option would enforce that > (with --no-chain-reply-to) or you can set it up in the git config. IMHO > it is always better to have the patchset in the single email thread. > Yes, now I have set up my git config for that. Hopefully, things will work properly - patchset in a single thread from the next time. Thanks. -- Vaishali
Powered by blists - more mailing lists