linux-kernel - Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid

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:   Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:06:46 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        x86@...nel.org, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        willy@...radead.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
        will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, sam@...nborg.org
Subject: Re: [v6 07/15] mm: defining memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw

On Fri 11-08-17 11:58:46, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 08:39 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:41, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> >>A new variant of memblock_virt_alloc_* allocations:
> >>memblock_virt_alloc_try_nid_raw()
> >>     - Does not zero the allocated memory
> >>     - Does not panic if request cannot be satisfied
> >
> >OK, this looks good but I would not introduce memblock_virt_alloc_raw
> >here because we do not have any users. Please move that to "mm: optimize
> >early system hash allocations" which actually uses the API. It would be
> >easier to review it that way.
> >
> >>Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
> >>Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
> >>Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
> >>Reviewed-by: Bob Picco <bob.picco@...cle.com>
> >
> >other than that
> >Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> 
> Sure, I could do this, but as I understood from earlier Dave Miller's
> comments, we should do one logical change at a time. Hence, introduce API in
> one patch use it in another. So, this is how I tried to organize this patch
> set. Is this assumption incorrect?

Well, it really depends. If the patch is really small then adding a new
API along with users is easier to review and backport because you have a
clear view of the usage. I believe this is the case here. But if others
feel otherwise I will not object.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs