linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX

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: <845b43cb-3b9e-1b97-babe-a433078c4f9c@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jul 2019 20:55:10 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
CC:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>, <linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <weidu.du@...wei.com>,
        Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES



On 2019/7/31 20:10, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Xiang,
> 
> On 2019/7/31 15:11, Gao Xiang wrote:
>> Hi Chao,
>>
>> On 2019/7/31 15:05, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES seems a runtime setting
>>>> and users have no idea about the change in behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> Let's remove the setting currently and fold it into code,
>>>> turn it into a module parameter if it's really needed.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> It's fine to me, but I'd like to suggest to add this as a sys entry which can be
>>> more flexible for user to change.
>>
>> I think it can be added in the later version, the original view
>> from David is that he had question how users using this option.
>>
>> Maybe we can use the default value and leave it to users who
>> really need to modify this value (real requirement).
> 
> I think we need to decide it in this version, otherwise it may face backward
> compatibility issue if we change module argument to sys entry later.
> 
> Maybe just leave it as an fixed macro is fine, since there is actually no
> requirement on this.

OK, will fix it --- leave the fixed macro.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gao Xiang
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>> .
>>