On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:01:01 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Please cc Alexey on /proc patches.
>
> If Alexey is responsible for procfs he should declare this in MAINTAINERS.
oop. I thought we did that but it isn't there.
> > What are the user-visible runtime
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:01:01 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Please cc Alexey on /proc patches.
>
> If Alexey is responsible for procfs he should declare this in MAINTAINERS.
oop. I thought we did that but it isn't there.
> > What are the user-visible runtime
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please cc Alexey on /proc patches.
If Alexey is responsible for procfs he should declare this in MAINTAINERS.
> What are the user-visible runtime effects of this change?
Memory usage only.
David
Andrew Morton wrote:
> Please cc Alexey on /proc patches.
If Alexey is responsible for procfs he should declare this in MAINTAINERS.
> What are the user-visible runtime effects of this change?
Memory usage only.
David
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:43:19 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Make calculation of the size of the inline name in struct proc_dir_entry
> automatic, rather than having to manually encode the numbers and failing to
> allow for lockdep.
>
> Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 19:43:19 +0100 David Howells wrote:
> Make calculation of the size of the inline name in struct proc_dir_entry
> automatic, rather than having to manually encode the numbers and failing to
> allow for lockdep.
>
> Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:30:42PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> > > Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
> > > like two hex numbers with a dash between.
> >
> > Why 34? /proc will fallback to separate allocation for name anyway.
>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:30:42PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> > > Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
> > > like two hex numbers with a dash between.
> >
> > Why 34? /proc will fallback to separate allocation for name anyway.
>
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
> > like two hex numbers with a dash between.
>
> Why 34? /proc will fallback to separate allocation for name anyway.
See above comment. I ran find on /proc and there were a bunch of files whose
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
> > like two hex numbers with a dash between.
>
> Why 34? /proc will fallback to separate allocation for name anyway.
See above comment. I ran find on /proc and there were a bunch of files whose
> Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
> like two hex numbers with a dash between.
Hi, David.
Why 34? /proc will fallback to separate allocation for name anyway.
I sent nearly identical patch earlier.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=152667374404900=4
If you
> Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
> like two hex numbers with a dash between.
Hi, David.
Why 34? /proc will fallback to separate allocation for name anyway.
I sent nearly identical patch earlier.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=152667374404900=4
If you
Make calculation of the size of the inline name in struct proc_dir_entry
automatic, rather than having to manually encode the numbers and failing to
allow for lockdep.
Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
like two hex numbers with a dash between.
Reported-by:
Make calculation of the size of the inline name in struct proc_dir_entry
automatic, rather than having to manually encode the numbers and failing to
allow for lockdep.
Require a minimum inline name size of 33+1 to allow for names that look
like two hex numbers with a dash between.
Reported-by:
14 matches
Mail list logo