linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11] mm: slub: move sysfs slab alloc/free interfaces to debugfs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 19:35:22 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyazm@...eaurora.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, glittao@...il.com,
        vinmenon@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11] mm: slub: move sysfs slab alloc/free interfaces to
 debugfs

On 6/8/21 7:11 PM, Faiyaz Mohammed wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/8/2021 5:20 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 11:45 AM Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyazm@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> alloc_calls and free_calls implementation in sysfs have two issues,
>>> one is PAGE_SIZE limitation of sysfs and other is it does not adhere
>>> to "one value per file" rule.
>>>
>>> To overcome this issues, move the alloc_calls and free_calls
>>> implementation to debugfs.
>>>
>>> Debugfs cache will be created if SLAB_STORE_USER flag is set.
>>>
>>> Rename the alloc_calls/free_calls to alloc_traces/free_traces,
>>> to be inline with what it does.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Faiyaz Mohammed <faiyazm@...eaurora.org>
>>> ---
>> 
>> It seems you missed the version bump along with changelog.
>> Note, some maintainers (actually quite many I think) are using tools
>> to fetch up the patches and two patches with the same version is a
>> problem. Hence I do not consider it a nit-pick.
>> 
> Hmmm, I think to avoid same version problem I have to push same patch
> with new version number and thank you for your patience.

I *think* Andrew wouldn't have this issue, so maybe resend only if he says it's
needed.
On the other hand I did have troubles to apply the last version locally, patch
(tool) complained of patch (file) being malformed at the end. Did you add or
delete lines from it after generating the patch? I had to use the recountdiff
tool to fix this. If you're going to resend, please make sure it's without the
same issue.

> Thanks and regards,
> Mohammed Faiyaz
>