linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v29 1/4] mm: support reporting free page blocks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5ACD6339.6040806@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:22:01 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        liliang.opensource@...il.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com,
        quan.xu0@...il.com, nilal@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com,
        huangzhichao@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v29 1/4] mm: support reporting free page blocks

On 04/11/2018 07:25 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 01:54:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 21:19:31 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew, were your questions answered? If yes could I bother you for an ack on this?
>>>
>> Still not very happy that readers are told that "this function may
>> sleep" when it clearly doesn't do so.  If we wish to be able to change
>> it to sleep in the future then that should be mentioned.  And even put a
>> might_sleep() in there, to catch people who didn't read the comments...
>>
>> Otherwise it looks OK.
> Oh, might_sleep with a comment explaining it's for the future sounds
> good to me. I queued this - Wei, could you post a patch on top pls?
>

I'm just thinking if it would be necessary to add another might_sleep, 
because we've had a cond_resched there which has wrapped a __might_sleep.

Best,
Wei