| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <b92484b6-c028-4969-8efb-aff747c38f83@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 15:31:47 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
isaacmanjarres@...gle.com, jyescas@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, masahiroy@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com,
minchan@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com,
tjmercier@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: rename CONFIG_PAGE_BLOCK_ORDER to
CONFIG_PAGE_BLOCK_ORDER_CEIL.
On 04.06.25 15:26, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 4 Jun 2025, at 0:36, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/25 21:18, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> The config is in fact an additional upper limit of pageblock_order, so
>>> rename it to avoid confusion.
>>
>> Agreed. This new config has been similar to existing 'pageblock_order'
>> that might cause confusion. Hence renaming makes sense. But instead of
>> PAGE_BLOCK_ORDER_CEIL should it be rather PAGE_BLOCK_ORDER_MAX ?
>
> Or PAGE_BLOCK_MAX_ORDER?
Would also work for me.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: e13e7922d034 ("mm: add CONFIG_PAGE_BLOCK_ORDER to select page block order")
>>
>> Does it really need a "Fixes: " tag given there is no problem to fix ?
>
> I have no strong opinion on this one.
Probably we want this to go into this release. No need for a Fixes: I
assume.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists