linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: count zeromap read and set for swapout and swapin

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: <91c683e7-58dc-4518-94bb-884b11683895@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 09:24:12 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>, Chengming Zhou
 <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
 Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: count zeromap read and set for swapout and swapin

On 05.11.24 09:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.11.24 04:40, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:32:55 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> As mentioned above, this isn't about fixing a bug; it's simply to ensure
>>>> that swap-related metrics don't disappear.
>>>
>>> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
>>>
>>> "A Fixes: tag indicates that the patch fixes an issue in a previous
>>> commit. It is used to make it easy to determine where a bug originated,
>>> which can help review a bug fix."
>>>
>>> If there is no BUG, I'm afraid you are abusing that tag.
>>
>> I think the abuse is reasonable.  We have no Should-be-included-with:.
> 
> A "Belongs-to:" might make sense, for this kind of stuff that is still
> only in an RFC.

s/RFC/RC/

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb