linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: remove zpool

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: <8984f395-9043-49dd-a53d-bd344fd419bc@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 13:26:11 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se>,
 hannes@...xchg.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: remove zpool

On 04.09.25 12:13, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 9/4/25 11:33, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>>> With zswap using zsmalloc directly, there are no more in-tree users of
>>> this code. Remove it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>>
>> Per the previous discussions, this gets a *NACK* from my side. There is
>> hardly anything _technical_ preventing new in-tree users of zpool API.
>> zpool API is neutral and well-defined, I don’t see *any* good reason for
>> it to be phased out.
> 
> AFAIK it's a policy that unused code should be removed ASAP. And that's the
> case for zpool after Patch 1, no? It could be different if another user was
> about to be merged (to avoid unnecessary churn), but that doesn't seem the
> case for zblock?

Right, and

  13 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 715 deletions(-)

speaks for itself if there is no new user anticipated.

IIRC, we did a similar approach when we removed frontswap.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb