linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] allow multiple kthreadd's

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200506155440.GB21307@fieldses.org>
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 11:54:40 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "open list:NFS, SUNRPC, AND..." <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] allow multiple kthreadd's

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:39:20AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Bruce.
> 
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:36:58AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:25:27PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:09:56PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > It's not the end of the world but a bit hacky. I wonder whether something
> > > > like the following would work better for identifying worker type so that you
> > > > can do sth like
> > > > 
> > > >  if (kthread_fn(current) == nfsd)
> > > >         return kthread_data(current);
> > > >  else
> > > >         return NULL;     
> > > 
> > > Yes, definitely more generic, looks good to me.
> > 
> > This is what I'm testing with.
> > 
> > If it's OK with you, could I add your Signed-off-by and take it through
> > the nfsd tree? I'll have some other patches that will depend on it.
> 
> Please feel free to use the code however you see fit. Given that it'll be
> originating from you, my signed-off-by might not be the right tag. Something
> like Original-patch-by should be good (nothing is fine too).

OK, I'll do that, thanks!

--b.