linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration improvements

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: <20180104073257.GA2801@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:32:57 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm, hugetlb: allocation API and migration
 improvements

On Wed 03-01-18 16:05:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed,  3 Jan 2018 10:32:07 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > I've posted this as an RFC [1] and both Mike and Naoya seem to be OK
> > both with patches and the approach. I have rebased this on top of [2]
> > because there is a small conflict in mm/mempolicy.c. I know it is late
> > in the release cycle but similarly to [2] I would really like to see
> > this in linux-next for a longer time for a wider testing exposure.
> 
> I'm interpreting this to mean "hold for 4.17-rc1"?

Yeah, that should be good enough. There shouldn't be any reason to rush
this through. I will build more changes on top but that is not critical
either. The longer this will be in linux-next, the better.

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs