linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 00/11] lib/interval-tree: move to half closed intervals

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:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 09:03:47 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 00/11] lib/interval-tree: move to half closed
 intervals

On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 06:15:11AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> My take is that this (Davidlohr's) patch series does not necessarily
> need to be applied all at once - we could get the first change in
> (adding the interval_tree_gen.h header), and convert the first few
> users, without getting them all at once, as long as we have a plan for
> finishing the work. So, if you have cleanups in progress in some of
> the files, just tell us which ones and we can leave them out from the
> first pass.

Since we have users which do need to use the full ULONG_MAX range
(as pointed out by Christian Koenig), I don't think adding a second
implementation which is half-open is a good idea.  It'll only lead to
confusion.