linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 20/29] virtio-mem: nb_sb_per_mb and subblock_size are specific to Sub Block Mode (SBM)

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: <c5a22f50-210d-a4ab-90b0-ba3d454c1882@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:57:28 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 20/29] virtio-mem: nb_sb_per_mb and subblock_size are
 specific to Sub Block Mode (SBM)

On 18.10.20 14:41, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 03:17:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 16.10.20 10:53, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:53:14PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> Let's rename to "sbs_per_mb" and "sb_size" and move accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
>>>> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>>>> Cc: Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta.linux@...il.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> One trivial suggestion, could we move this patch close the data structure
>>> movement patch?
>>>
>>> I know this would be some work, since you have changed some of the code logic.
>>> This would take you some time to rebase.
>>
>> You mean after patch #17 ?
> 
> Yes
> 
>>
>> I guess I can move patch #18 (prereq) a little further up (e.g., after
>> patch #15). Guess moving it in front of #19 shouldn't be too hard.
>>
>> Will give it a try - if it takes too much effort, I'll leave it like this.
>>
> 
> Not a big deal, while it will make the change more intact to me.
> 
> This is a big patch set to me. In case it could be split into two parts, like
> bug fix/logic improvement and BBM implementation, that would be more friendly
> to review.

I'll most probably keep it as a single series, but reshuffle the patches
into

1. cleanups
2. preparations
3. BBM

That should make things easier to digest. Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb