linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Ion cleanup in preparation for moving out of staging

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:   Fri, 3 Mar 2017 09:37:55 -0800
From:   Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>, arve@...roid.com,
        romlem@...gle.com, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@....com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Ion cleanup in preparation for moving out of
 staging

On 03/03/2017 05:29 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 02-03-17 13:44:32, Laura Abbott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's been some recent discussions[1] about Ion-like frameworks. There's
>> apparently interest in just keeping Ion since it works reasonablly well.
>> This series does what should be the final clean ups for it to possibly be
>> moved out of staging.
>>
>> This includes the following:
>> - Some general clean up and removal of features that never got a lot of use
>>   as far as I can tell.
>> - Fixing up the caching. This is the series I proposed back in December[2]
>>   but never heard any feedback on. It will certainly break existing
>>   applications that rely on the implicit caching. I'd rather make an effort
>>   to move to a model that isn't going directly against the establishement
>>   though.
>> - Fixing up the platform support. The devicetree approach was never well
>>   recieved by DT maintainers. The proposal here is to think of Ion less as
>>   specifying requirements and more of a framework for exposing memory to
>>   userspace.
>> - CMA allocations now happen without the need of a dummy device structure.
>>   This fixes a bunch of the reasons why I attempted to add devicetree
>>   support before.
>>
>> I've had problems getting feedback in the past so if I don't hear any major
>> objections I'm going to send out with the RFC dropped to be picked up.
>> The only reason there isn't a patch to come out of staging is to discuss any
>> other changes to the ABI people might want. Once this comes out of staging,
>> I really don't want to mess with the ABI.
> 
> Could you recapitulate concerns preventing the code being merged
> normally rather than through the staging tree and how they were
> addressed?
> 

Sorry, I'm really not understanding your question here, can you
clarify?

Thanks,
Laura