[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160503055715.GC25545@swordfish>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:57:15 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] zram: user per-cpu compression streams
On (05/03/16 14:40), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > At least, we need sanity check code, still?
> > Otherwise, user can echo "garbage" > /sys/xxx/max_comp_stream" and then
> > cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_stream returns num_online_cpus.
>
> One more thing,
>
> User:
> echo 4 > /sys/xxx/max_comp_stream"
> cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams
> 8
sure, it can also be
cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams
5
cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams
6
cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams
7
cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams
3
depending on the availability of CPUs. but why would user space
constantly check max_comp_streams?
> which is rather weird?
>
> We should keep user's value and return it to user although it's techically
> lying. IMO, it would be best way to prevent confusing for user until we
> removes max_comp_streams finally.
well, I preferred to show the actual state of the device. besides,
does anyone really do
write buffer to file
if (success)
read from file and compare with the buffer
?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists