linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup

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: <20210531144128.e69aaf2904e83ae170f00f06@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 14:41:28 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 0/3] mm/mempolicy: some fix and semantics cleanup

On Mon, 31 May 2021 22:05:53 +0800 Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:

> We've posted v4 patchset introducing a new "perfer-many" memory policy
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1615952410-36895-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com/ ,
> for which Michal Hocko gave many comments while pointing out some
> problems, and we also found some semantics confusion about 'prefer'
> and 'local' policy, as well as some duplicated code. This patchset
> tries to address them. Please help to review, thanks!
> 
> The patchset has been run with some sanity test like 'stress-ng'
> and 'ltp', and no problem found.

None of the above is suitable for the [0/n] overall description.  I
copied-n-pasted the v1 cover letter from the above link.  Please check
that it is all still correct and up to date.  If not, please send along
replacement text, thanks.