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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bd3d2c7f-93a1-441c-b475-873d8d92e839@konsulko.se>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 07:36:20 +0200
From: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 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 9/4/25 13:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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.

Well, there surely is.

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