linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct definition into the header

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, 15 Feb 2024 11:43:16 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
 Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/7] lib/stackdepot: Move stack_record struct
 definition into the header

On 2/15/24 10:33, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 10:30, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/15/24 09:16, Marco Elver wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 18:00, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In order to move the heavy lifting into page_owner code, this one
>> >> needs to have access to the stack_record structure, which right now
>> >> sits in lib/stackdepot.c.
>> >> Move it to the stackdepot.h header so page_owner can access
>> >> stack_record's struct fields.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> >> ---
>>
>> >>  #define DEPOT_POOLS_CAP 8192
>> >> -/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle. */
>> >> +/* The pool_index is offset by 1 so the first record does not have a 0 handle */
>> >
>> > Why this comment change? We lost the '.' -- for future reference, it'd
>> > be good to ensure unnecessary changes don't creep into the diff. This
>> > is just nitpicking,
>>
>> Agree with this part.
>>
>> > and I've already reviewed this change, so no need
>> > to send a v+1.
>>
>> But confused by this remark. There is a number of nontrivial changes in the
>> series from v8, and IIRC v8 was dropped from mm/ meanwhile, so a v+1 of the
>> whole series is expected and not fixups. Which means including patches that
>> were already reviewed. That's the usual process.
> 
> This is already v9. Of course, still need to look at rest of v9 and if
> there are major changes needed then a v10 is needed.

Ah sorry I misunderstood you completely. What you meant v10 isn't needed for
the missing "." and I thought you were saying v9 already wasn't needed (for
this particular patch).