linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/20] mm: zswap: cleanups

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, 30 Jan 2024 08:16:27 +0000
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, 
	Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] mm: zswap: cleanups

Hey Johannes,

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 08:36:36PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Cleanups and maintenance items that accumulated while reviewing zswap
> patches. Based on akpm/mm-unstable + the UAF fix I sent just now.

Patches 1 to 9 LGTM, thanks for the great cleanups!

I am less excited about patches 10 to 20 though. Don't get me wrong, I
am all of logically ordering the code. However, it feels like in this
case, we will introduce unnecessary layers in the git history in a lot
of places where I find myself checking the history regularly.
Personally, I tend to jump around the file using vim search or using a
cscope extension to find references/definitions, so I don't feel a need
for such reordering.

I am not objecting to it, but I just find it less appealing that the
rest of the series.

> 
>  mm/zswap.c | 1961 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 971 insertions(+), 990 deletions(-)
>