linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] Overhaul multi-page lookups for THP

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: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2011241854140.3099@eggly.anvils>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:56:31 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, hch@....de,
        hannes@...xchg.org, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com,
        dchinner@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] Overhaul multi-page lookups for THP

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:43:02PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 07:15:13PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > I find both of these functions exceptionally confusing.  Does this
> > > > make it easier to understand?
> > > 
> > > Never mind, this is buggy.  I'll send something better tomorrow.
> > 
> > That took a week, not a day.  *sigh*.  At least this is shorter.
> 
> Thanks, I'll give it a try (along with the other 4, on top of the 12:

s/12/16/

> maybe on -rc5, maybe on today's mmotm, I'll decide that later).
> 
> Shorter you say, that's good: I was disheartened by the way it got
> more complicated, after your initial truncate_inode_partial_page()
> neatness.  Any hints on what was wrong with my simple fixup to that?
> (But I didn't spend any more time trying to prove or disprove it.)
> 
> Hugh
>