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  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:   Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:28:05 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <>
To:     Tejun Heo <>
Cc:     'Paolo Valente' via bfq-iosched <>,
        Angelo Ruocco <>,
        Jens Axboe <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Li Zefan <>,
        Angelo Ruocco <>,
        Dennis Zhou <>,
        Josef Bacik <>,
        Liu Bo <>,
        Bart Van Assche <>,
        Johannes Weiner <>,
        linux-block <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Ulf Hansson <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,,,,, Jonathan Corbet <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/10] unify the interface of the proportional-share
 policy in blkio/io

> Il giorno 2 gen 2019, alle ore 17:03, Tejun Heo <> ha scritto:
> Hello, Paolo.
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:25:25AM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> What's the benefit of throwing away months of work, on which we agreed
>> before starting it, and that solves a problem already acknowledged by
>> interested parties?
> Showing multiple conflicting numbers definitely isn't anything which
> is agreed upon.

Sorry, of course you din't realize that sharing interface files had
this consequence, otherwise you'd have protested beforehand.

The problem is that this consequence seems unavoidable: if two
policies have different numbers to convey, through a shared interface
file, then they must be allowed to write their different numbers.  To
me, this doesn't sound like a problem.

The only other natural option is no unification, unless you have a
third way.

What do you prefer, or propose?


> Thanks.
> -- 
> tejun

Powered by blists - more mailing lists