linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] mm: rename the global section array to mem

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]

Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 19:26:30 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     HAGIO KAZUHITO (萩尾　一仁) 
        <k-hagio-ab@....com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/6] mm: rename the global section array to
 mem_sections

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 01:11:07 +0000 HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾　一仁) <k-hagio-ab@....com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:40:09 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Thanks, i explained the reason during my last reply.
> > > > Andrew has already picked this patch to -mm tree.
> > >
> > > Just because it's in Andrews tree doesn't mean it will end up upstream. ;)
> > >
> > > Anyhow, no really strong opinion, it's simply unnecessary code churn
> > > that makes bisecting harder without real value IMHO.
> > 
> > I think it's a good change - mem_sections refers to multiple instances
> > of a mem_section.  Churn is a pain, but that's the price we pay for more
> > readable code.  And for having screwed it up originally ;)
> 
> >From a makedumpfile/crash-utility viewpoint, I don't deny kernel improvement
> and probably the change will not be hard for them to support, but I'd like
> you to remember that the tool users will need to update them for the change.
> 
> The situation where we need to update the tools for new kernels is usual, but
> there are not many cases that they cannot even start session, and this change
> will cause it.  Personally I wonder the change is worth forcing users to update
> them.

Didn't know that.  I guess I'll drop it then.

We could do an assembly-level alias I assume..