linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] XArray for 4.20

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

Date:   Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:27:44 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] XArray for 4.20

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:21:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:13 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:50:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > NOTE! I did get some conflicts with other stuff, and while the
> > > conflict resolution all looked pretty straightforward, this does want
> > > looking at.
> > >
> > > Particularly the mm/workingset.c code.
> >
> > I've been rebasing the xarray-conv branch on your tree pretty regularly
> > this week, so I have a fairly good idea how I think it should look.
> > I'll check to see if you & I have the same thoughts when you push it out.
> 
> It's pushed out now. I'm running the kernel now, but have done only
> basic boot testing (in addition to my usual build tests), no real
> stress-tests.

Yep, no differences in how we resolved the conflicts.