linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in alloc

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: <d32641ca-e34a-2bfd-9b86-28c95546f434@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:42:33 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] loop: Fix missing max_active argument in
 alloc_workqueue call

On 3/18/21 2:24 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 18/03/2021 20:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 3/18/21 9:16 AM, Colin King wrote:
>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>>
>>> The 3rd argument to alloc_workqueue should be the max_active count,
>>> however currently it is the lo->lo_number that is intended for the
>>> loop%d number. Fix this by adding in the missing max_active count.
>>
>> Dan, please fold this (or something similar) in when you're redoing the
>> series.
>>
> Appreciate this fix being picked up. Are we going to lose the SoB?

If it's being redone, would be silly to have that error in there. Do
we have a tag that's appropriate for this? I often wonder when I'm
folding in a fix. Ala Fixes-by: or something like that.

-- 
Jens Axboe