linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Guaranteed CMA

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: <CAJuCfpFg3UKs_eY8eCuqS9oMrEA9N1em4wj8da7cotd3MgBweg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 08:01:20 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...hat.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, 
	Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, alexandru.elisei@....com, 
	peterx@...hat.com, sj@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com, 
	corbet@....net, axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, 
	jack@...e.cz, willy@...radead.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, 
	robin.murphy@....com, hannes@...xchg.org, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, 
	shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com, 
	weixugc@...gle.com, minchan@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Guaranteed CMA

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 7:57 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 2:23 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 12:51:17PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > I'm guessing you missed my reply to your comment in the previous
> > > submission: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAJuCfpFs5aKv8E96YC_pasNjH6=eukTuS2X8f=nBGiiuE0Nwhg@mail.gmail.com/
> > > Please check it out and follow up here or on the original thread.
> >
> > I didn't feel to comment on it.  Please don't just build abstractions
> > on top of abstractions for no reason.  If you later have to introduce
> > them add them when they are actually needed.
>
> Ok, if it makes it easier to review the code, I'll do it. So, I can:
> 1. merge cleancache code (patch 1) with the GCMA code (patch 7). This
> way all the logic will be together.
> 2. . LRU additiona (patch 2) and readahead support (patch 3) can stay
> as incremental additions to GCMA, sysfs interface (patch 4) and
> cleancache documentation (

Sorry, clicked send before finishing the reply...

Ok, if it makes it easier to review the code, I'll do it. So, I can:
1. merge cleancache code (patch 1) with the GCMA code (patch 7). This
way all the logic will be together.
2. LRU addition (patch 2) and readahead support (patch 3) can stay as
incremental additions to GCMA.
3. sysfs interface (patch 4) and cleancache documentation (patch 6)
will be excluded for now from the patchset. Moving sysfs later would
introduce UAPI changes and unnecessary headache. Documenting
cleancache separately would also not make sense;
4. Unit tests (patch 5) and GCMA integration will also be left as
separate patches.

Would that be easier to review?

>
>
> >