linux-kernel - Re: cleanup the walk_page

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: <20190816062751.GA16169@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Aug 2019 23:27:51 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Hellström <thomas@...pmail.org>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cleanup the walk_page_range interface

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:50:37AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:42 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> >
> > this series is based on a patch from Linus to split the callbacks
> > passed to walk_page_range and walk_page_vma into a separate structure
> > that can be marked const, with various cleanups from me on top.
> 
> The whole series looks good to me. Ack.
> 
> > Note that both Thomas and Steven have series touching this area pending,
> > and there are a couple consumer in flux too - the hmm tree already
> > conflicts with this series, and I have potential dma changes on top of
> > the consumers in Thomas and Steven's series, so we'll probably need a
> > git tree similar to the hmm one to synchronize these updates.
> 
> I'd be willing to just merge this now, if that helps. The conversion
> is mechanical, and my only slight worry would be that at least for my
> original patch I didn't build-test the (few) non-x86
> architecture-specific cases. But I did end up looking at them fairly
> closely  (basically using some grep/sed scripts to see that the
> conversions I did matched the same patterns). And your changes look
> like obvious improvements too where any mistake would have been caught
> by the compiler.
> 
> So I'm not all that worried from a functionality standpoint, and if
> this will help the next merge window, I'll happily pull now.

So what is the plan forward?  Probably a little late for 5.3,
so queue it up in -mm for 5.4 and deal with the conflicts in at least
hmm?  Queue it up in the hmm tree even if it doesn't 100% fit?