linux-kernel - Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 06/32] sched: Add task_struct->faults_disabled

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, 25 May 2023 17:40:26 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 06/32] sched: Add
 task_struct->faults_disabled_mapping

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 01:58:13AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:09:02AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Well, it seems like you are talking about something else than the
> > > existing cases in gfs2 and btrfs, that is you want full consistency
> > > between direct I/O and buffered I/O.  That's something nothing in the
> > > kernel has ever provided, so I'd be curious why you think you need it
> > > and want different semantics from everyone else?
> > 
> > Because I like code that is correct.
> 
> Well, start with explaining your definition of correctness, why everyone
> else is "not correct", an how you can help fixing this correctness
> problem in the existing kernel.  Thanks for your cooperation!

BTW, if you wanted a more serious answer, just asking for the commit
message to be expanded would be a better way to ask...