linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] make "order" unsigned int

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: <20190726072637.GC2739@techsingularity.net>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:26:37 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Pengfei Li <lpf.vector@...il.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        cai@....pw, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, osalvador@...e.de,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com, rppt@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] make "order" unsigned int

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:42:43AM +0800, Pengfei Li wrote:
> Objective
> ----
> The motivation for this series of patches is use unsigned int for
> "order" in compaction.c, just like in other memory subsystems.
> 

Why? The series is relatively subtle in parts, particularly patch 5.
There have been places where by it was important for order to be able to
go negative due to loop exit conditions. If there was a gain from this
or it was a cleanup in the context of another major body of work, I
could understand the justification but that does not appear to be the
case here.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs