linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/1] block, bfq: remove bfq prefix from cgroups filenames

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]

Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:45:03 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        noreply-spamdigest via bfq-iosched 
        <bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] block, bfq: remove bfq prefix from cgroups filenames



> Il giorno 16 set 2019, alle ore 18:01, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> On 9/16/19 9:21 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Il giorno 16 set 2019, alle ore 17:16, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> Hello, Paolo.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 05:07:29PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>> Tejun, could you put your switch-off-io-cost code into a standalone
>>>> patch, so that I can put it together with this one in a complete
>>>> series?
>>> 
>>> It was more of a proof-of-concept / example, so the note in the email
>>> that the code is free to be modified / used any way you see fit.  That
>>> said, if you like it as it is, I can surely prep it as a standalone
>>> patch.
>>> 
>> 
>> AFAICT your proposal contains no evident error.  Plus, no one seems to
>> have complained about the idea (regardless from the exact
>> implementation).  So I guess the best next step is to go for it.
> 
> Not filling me with a lot of confidence that you actually tested it?
> 

Tested it too. Waiting for Tejun's patch to re-submit it with mine.

Thanks,
Paolo

> -- 
> Jens Axboe