linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/11] mm: use SWAP

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:37:40 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel-team@....com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/11] mm: use SWAP_SUCCESS instead of 0

On 03/03/2017 08:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:57:10PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 03/02/2017 12:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> SWAP_SUCCESS defined value 0 can be changed always so don't rely on
>>> it. Instead, use explict macro.
>>
>> Right. But should not we move the changes to the callers last in the
>> patch series after doing the cleanup to the try_to_unmap() function
>> as intended first.
> 
> I don't understand what you are pointing out. Could you elaborate it
> a bit?

I was just referring to the order of this patch in the series and
thinking if it would have been better if this patch would be at a
later stage in the series. But I guess its okay as we are any way
dropping off SWAP_FAIL, SWAP_SUCCESS etc in the end.