netdev - Re: include/linux/pcounter.h

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:27:30 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: include/linux/pcounter.h

Em Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 08:36:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> 
> * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
> > > but the main and fundamental question still remains unanswered (more 
> > > than 3 weeks after Andrew asked that question): why was this piece 
> > > of general infrastructure merged via net.git and not submitted to 
> > > lkml ever? The code touching -mm does _not_ count as "review".
> > 
> > I already stated this was a mistake and it won't happen again in the 
> > future.
> 
> sorry - that bit of the thread didnt seem to make it to lkml. I just saw 
> this incomplete discussion with a denial and with no resolution.
> 
> And you did the right thing anyway by thinking in terms of a generic 
> piece of infrastructure instead of hiding it away into say 
> include/net/pcounter.h (which nobody could have objected against).
> 
> I sometimes think that the forced isolation of subsystems (rather 
> strongly enforced both by -mm and by linux-next) and their hiding away 
> on non-lkml lists will eventually hurt the core kernel because less and 
> less people will be willing to go the trouble of doing proper 
> cross-subsystem development. That results in duplicated or specialistic 
> infrastructure, increased code size and longer term, ultimately less 
> performance. (by the time we notice _that_ it will probably be too late 
> to do anything about it)

This more friendly wording makes me feel actually happy to get from my
hiding place and tell that I actually saw the percpu counters code, just
after I made Eric's code generic as I thought it should have been from
the start, I found out about what was already in lib/.

I just got lazy to do what at the time looked the right thing
to do: to read thru the existing lib/ code and use it where pcounter was
being used. But at least it got exposed 8-)

Anyway, progress was made, I do not feel too bad about it even now.

- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html