linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: Return false instead of -EAGAIN for dummy functions

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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:13:55 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Chen Gang <chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, minchan@...nel.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, gi-oh.kim@...fitbricks.com,
        opensource.ganesh@...il.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: Return false instead of -EAGAIN for dummy
 functions

On 09/21/2016 10:11 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 21-09-16 06:06:44, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 9/20/16 16:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>
> skipping the large part of the email because I do not have a spare time
> to discuss this.
>
>>> So what is the point of this whole exercise? Do not take me wrong, this
>>> area could see some improvements but I believe that doing int->bool
>>> change is not just the right thing to do and worth spending both your
>>> and reviewers time.
>>>
>>
>> I am not quite sure about that.
>
> Maybe you should listen to the feedback your are getting. I do not think
> I am not the first one here.
>
> Look, MM surely needs some man power. There are issues to be solved,
> patches to review. Doing the cleanups is really nice but there are more
> serious problems to solve first. If you want to help then starting
> with review would be much much more helpful and hugely appreciated. We
> are really lacking people there a _lot_. Just generating more work for
> reviewers with something that doesn't make any real difference in the
> runtime is far less helpful IMHO.

Agreed, thanks.

> Thanks.
>