linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] supplement of slab allocator removal

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]

Message-ID: <457899ac-baab-e976-44ec-dfdeb23be031@suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 17:13:19 +0100
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     sxwjean@...com, 42.hyeyoo@...il.com, cl@...ux.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, corbet@....net, keescook@...omium.org,
        arnd@...db.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] supplement of slab allocator removal

On 12/3/23 01:14, sxwjean@...com wrote:
> From: Xiongwei Song <xiongwei.song@...driver.com>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Patch 1 is to remove an unused parameter. This patch actually is v3, but
> it is not reasonable to add v3 tag in the cover letter, so I put the
> change history inside the patch.
> 
> ---
> Patch 2 is to replace slub_$params with slab_$params.
> Vlastimil Babka pointed out we should use "slab_$param" as the primary
> prefix for long-term plan. Please see [1] for more information.
> 
> This patch is to do that. However, the patch is big, I'm not sure if
> everything is proper in it, so I added "RFC" in the patch title. For more
> information please see the commit message of patch.
> 
> I did the basic tests with qemu, which passed values by sl[au]b_max_order,
> sl[au]b_min_order, sl[au]b_min_objects and sl[au]b_debug in command line.
> The values looks correct by printing them out before calculating orders.
> 
> One thing I'm not sure about the forth parameter of __setup_param(),
> Is it correct to set the parameter to 0 directly?

Yep it's fine.