linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] COVER: Remove memcpy_page

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:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 09:16:34 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] COVER: Remove memcpy_page_flushcache()

+ Konstantin

Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> writes:
> > Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 3/15/23 16:20, Ira Weiny wrote:
> >> > Commit 21b56c847753 ("iov_iter: get rid of separate bvec and xarray 
> >> > callbacks") removed the calls to memcpy_page_flushcache().
> >> > 
> >> > kmap_atomic() is deprecated and used in the x86 version of
> >> > memcpy_page_flushcache().
> >> > 
> >> > Remove the unnecessary memcpy_page_flushcache() call from all arch's.
> >> 
> >> Hi Ira,
> >> 
> >> Since the common code user is already gone these three patches seem
> >> quite independent.  It seems like the right thing to do is have
> >> individual arch maintainers cherry pick their arch patch and carry it
> >> independently.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> 
> >> Is there a compelling reason to have someone pick up and carry these all
> >> together that I'm missing?
> >
> > No reason.  Would you like me to submit them individually?
> 
> I'll just grab the powerpc one from the thread, no need to resend.

Thanks.

> 
> > Sorry, submitting them separately crossed my mind when I wrote them but I
> > kind of forgot as they were all on the same branch and I was waiting for
> > after the merge window to submit them.
> 
> It's also much easier to run git-send-email HEAD^^^, rather than running
> it three separate times, let alone if it's a 20 patch series.

Exactly.  And I'm using b4 which would have forced me to create a separate
branch for each of the patches to track.  So I was keeping them around in
a single branch to let 0day run after the merge window.  Then I forgot
about the idea of splitting them because b4 had it all packaged up nice!

> 
> I wonder if we could come up with some convention to indicate that a
> series is made up of independent patches, and maintainers are free to
> pick them individually - but still sent as a single series.

Maybe.  But perhaps b4 could have a send option which would split them
out?  I'll see about adding an option to b4 but I've Cc'ed Konstantin as
well for the idea.

Thanks for picking this up!
Ira

> 
> cheers