linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 0/9] mm: make movable onlining suck less

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:   Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:42:57 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...il.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        qiuxishi@...wei.com, Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@....com>,
        slaoub@...il.com, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Tobias Regnery <tobias.regnery@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/9] mm: make movable onlining suck less

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon 17-04-17 14:51:12, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > All the reported issue seem to be fixed and pushed to my git tree
>> > attempts/rewrite-mem_hotplug branch. I will wait a day or two for more
>> > feedback and then repost for the inclusion. I would really appreaciate
>> > more testing/review!
>>
>> This still seems to be based on 4.10? It's missing some block-layer
>> fixes and other things that trigger failures in the nvdimm unit tests.
>> Can you rebase to a more recent 4.11-rc?
>
> OK, I will rebase on top of linux-next. This has been based on mmotm
> tree so far. Btw. is there anything that would change the current
> implementation other than small context tweaks? In other words, do you
> see any issues with the current implementation regarding nvdimm's
> ZONE_DEVICE usage?

I don't foresee any issues, but I wanted to be able to run the latest
test suite to be sure.