linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol.c: move mem_cgroup_id_get_many under CONFIG

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: <CE79F821-F17D-489D-81A9-CD87AEA9C0ED@lca.pw>
Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:34:55 -0500
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: memcontrol.c: move mem_cgroup_id_get_many under CONFIG_MMU



> On Dec 17, 2019, at 10:28 AM, Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name> wrote:
> 
> Maybe Qian is right and we should just ignore such patches, but I think that comes with its own risks that we will alienate perfectly well intentioned new contributors to mm without them having any idea why we did that.

Yes, that is a good point, but in reality is that there are many subsystems have already done the same. We even have some famous introduction document for kernel development put in the way that if “the maintainers (or Linus) ignored your patches after the resend, they probably don’t like it.”