linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] mm/rmap: introduce and use hugetlb_remove

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, 28 Nov 2023 12:13:53 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] mm/rmap: introduce and use hugetlb_remove_rmap()

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:39:35PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Quoting from the cover letter:
> 
> "We have hugetlb special-casing/checks in the callers in all cases either
> way already in place: it doesn't make too much sense to call generic-looking
> functions that end up doing hugetlb specific things from hugetlb
> special-cases."

I'll take this one as an example: I think one goal (of my understanding of
the mm community) is to make the generic looking functions keep being
generic, dropping any function named as "*hugetlb*" if possible one day
within that generic implementation.  I said that in my previous reply.

Having that "*hugetlb*" code already in the code base may or may not be a
good reason to further move it upward the stack.

Strong feelings?  No, I don't have.  I'm not knowledged enough to do so.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu