linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] mmu notifier provide context informations

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: <CAPcyv4gZ=aJSixVwOCrxAf_fn4emx68_80SSFQdzGvvN0mHLGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:49:36 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Ross Zwisler <zwisler@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Maling list - DRI developers 
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] mmu notifier provide context informations

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 03:30:33PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:15:55PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > Since last version [4] i added the extra bits needed for the change_pte
> > > > optimization (which is a KSM thing). Here i am not posting users of
> > > > this, they will be posted to the appropriate sub-systems (KVM, GPU,
> > > > RDMA, ...) once this serie get upstream. If you want to look at users
> > > > of this see [5] [6]. If this gets in 5.1 then i will be submitting
> > > > those users for 5.2 (including KVM if KVM folks feel comfortable with
> > > > it).
> > >
> > > The users look small and straightforward. Why not await acks and
> > > reviewed-by's for the users like a typical upstream submission and
> > > merge them together? Is all of the functionality of this
> > > infrastructure consumed by the proposed users? Last time I checked it
> > > was only a subset.
> >
> > Yes pretty much all is use, the unuse case is SOFT_DIRTY and CLEAR
> > vs UNMAP. Both of which i intend to use. The RDMA folks already ack
> > the patches IIRC, so did radeon and amdgpu. I believe the i915 folks
> > were ok with it too. I do not want to merge things through Andrew
> > for all of this we discussed that in the past, merge mm bits through
> > Andrew in one release and bits that use things in the next release.
>
> It is usually cleaner for everyone to split patches like this, for
> instance I always prefer to merge RDMA patches via RDMA when
> possible. Less conflicts.
>
> The other somewhat reasonable option is to get acks and send your own
> complete PR to Linus next week? That works OK for tree-wide changes.

Yes, I'm not proposing that they be merged together, instead I'm just
looking for the acked-by / reviewed-by tags even if those patches are
targeting the next merge window.