linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHv5 2/6] zram: add writeback batch size device attr

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: <ajejtr7lff3dcvjrxgp7k3q3rykhjmxboxggldulhkinuqw6iy@pmbo2isvhf4q>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:56:14 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, 
	Yuwen Chen <ywen.chen@...mail.com>, Richard Chang <richardycc@...gle.com>, 
	Fengyu Lian <licayy@...look.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv5 2/6] zram: add writeback batch size device attr

On (25/11/20 10:57), Brian Geffon wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > index 37c1416ac902..7904159e9226 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> > @@ -588,6 +588,42 @@ static ssize_t writeback_limit_show(struct device *dev,
> >         return sysfs_emit(buf, "%llu\n", val);
> >  }
> >
> > +static ssize_t writeback_batch_size_store(struct device *dev,
> > +                                         struct device_attribute *attr,
> > +                                         const char *buf, size_t len)
> > +{
> > +       struct zram *zram = dev_to_zram(dev);
> > +       u32 val;
> > +       ssize_t ret = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +       if (kstrtouint(buf, 10, &val))
> > +               return ret;
> > +
> > +       if (!val)
> > +               val = 1;
> 
> IMO a value of 0 for the batch size doesn't make sense, -EINVAL?

Ack.