linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection

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:   Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:30:37 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, djwong@...nel.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, logfs@...fs.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] lockdep: allow to disable reclaim lockup detection

On Mon 06-02-17 07:24:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:34:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > This part is not needed for the patch, strictly speaking but I wanted to
> > make the code more future proof.
> 
> Understood.  I took an extra bit myself for marking the radix tree as
> being used for an IDR (so the radix tree now uses 4 bits).  I see you
> already split out the address space GFP mask from the other flags :-)
> I would prefer not to do that with the radix tree, but I understand
> your desire for more GFP bits.  I'm not entirely sure that an implicit
> gfpmask makes a lot of sense for the radix tree, but it'd be a big effort
> to change all the callers.  Anyway, I'm going to update your line here
> for my current tree and add the build bug so we'll know if we ever hit
> any problems.

OK, do I get it right that the patch can stay as is and go to Andrew?
I would really like to not rebase the patch again for something that is
not merged yet. I really hope for getting this merged finally...

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs