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: <87o9wjs80u.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:28:17 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        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()

Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> writes:

> 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.

Sorry for inconvenience, I will send a new version to combine the
function definition and usage into one patch at least for you to
review.  But I think we can continue our discussion in the comments your
raised so far firstly, what do you think about that?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying