linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Make SRCU be once again optional

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]

Message-Id: <20170512191005.GE3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2017 12:10:05 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu] Make SRCU be once again optional

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 02:59:48PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 05:10:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 05:51:15PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hello, Nicolas!
> > > > > 
> > > > > Saw the TTY write up LWN and figured I should send this your way.
> > > > > It should be worth about 2K compared to current -next, which gave
> > > > > up the 2K compared to v4.10.  So really getting things back to where
> > > > > they were.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My current plan is to push this into v4.13.
> > > > 
> > > > Excellent!
> > > > 
> > > > If every maintainer finds a way to (optionally) reduce the size of the 
> > > > code they maintain by 2K then we'll get a much smaller kernel pretty 
> > > > soon.
> > > 
> > > I would feel better if it wasn't me who had added the 2K, but then
> > > again, I do look forward to seeing a negative-sized kernel!  ;-)
> > 
> > And I am getting a lot of offlist pressure to remove both Tiny RCU and
> > Tiny SRCU.  I am pushing back, but I might or might not prevail.  In case
> > my pushback gets pushed back, do you have a -tiny tree or some such where
> > the code could go?
> 
> No.  "Available in mainline" is the name of the game for all I do. If it 
> can't be made acceptable for mainline then it basically has no chance of 
> gaining traction and becoming generally useful. My approach is therefore 
> to always find solutions that can be maintained upstream and contributed 
> to with minimal fuss by anyone.

OK, then wish me luck.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul