linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm -v7 4/9] mm, THP, swap: Add get_huge_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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170329170800.GC31821@cmpxchg.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:08:00 -0400
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v7 4/9] mm, THP, swap: Add get_huge_swap_page()

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:32:04PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> @@ -527,6 +527,23 @@ static inline swp_entry_t get_swap_page(void)
>  
>  #endif /* CONFIG_SWAP */
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_THP_SWAP_CLUSTER
> +static inline swp_entry_t get_huge_swap_page(void)
> +{
> +	swp_entry_t entry;
> +
> +	if (get_swap_pages(1, &entry, true))
> +		return entry;
> +	else
> +		return (swp_entry_t) {0};
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline swp_entry_t get_huge_swap_page(void)
> +{
> +	return (swp_entry_t) {0};
> +}
> +#endif

Your introducing a function without a user, making it very hard to
judge whether the API is well-designed for the callers or not.

I pointed this out as a systemic problem with this patch series in v3,
along with other stuff, but with the way this series is structured I'm
having a hard time seeing whether you implemented my other feedback or
whether your counter arguments to them are justified.

I cannot review and ack these patches this way.