linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] mm/migrate: change the interface of the migration target alloc/free functions

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: <CAAmzW4NxY_wW165DPhyH+4iSKba+bDUc0H+9qN4VHxmPJKq_VA@mail.gmail.com>
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.