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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:45:03 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@....com, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] mm/migrate: change the interface of the migration target alloc/free functions 2020년 6월 9일 (화) 오후 11:04, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>님이 작성: > > On Wed 27-05-20 15:44:59, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> > > > > To prepare unifying duplicated functions in following patches, this patch > > changes the interface of the migration target alloc/free functions. > > Functions now use struct alloc_control as an argument. > > It also pulls private argument into alloc_control and keeps it that way. > Wouldn't it be better to use explicit types and names in a union? Each > allocation callback has to understant the meaning anyway. I would > consider the resulting code cleaner that way. What do you think? Your suggestion sounds reasonable. Thanks. My plan is that, as Vlastimil suggested, I will keep the private argument in migration callback and use the appropriate private argument by the allocation caller. There will be no private field on alloc_control. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists