Joe Perches writes:
> Couple more bikesheddy things:
>
> Is there ever a reason to use a non __builtin_const_p(perms)?
It's a bit conservative, and anyway, the test is useless since AFAICT
BUILD_BUG_ON() is a noop if !__builtin_const_p(). I removed it
and re-tested.
> Maybe that should be a BUI
Bjorn Helgaas writes:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Side effect of stricter permissions means removing the unnecessary
>> S_IFREG from drivers/pci/slot.c.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Joe Perches
>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russel
Couple more bikesheddy things:
Is there ever a reason to use a non __builtin_const_p(perms)?
Maybe that should be a BUILD_BUG_ON too
BUILD_BUG_ON(!builtin_const_p_perms)
My brain of little size gets confused by the
BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(foo) +
vs
BUILD_BUG_ON(foo);
as it just
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Joe Perches writes:
>> On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this
>>> > now:
>>>
>>> G
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 05:07:50PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Joe Perches writes:
> > On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this
> >> > n
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 17:07 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Summary of http://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/14/363 :
>
> Ted: module_param(queue_depth, int, 444)
> Joe: 0444!
> Rusty: User perms >= group perms >= other perms?
> Joe: CLASS_ATTR, DEVICE_ATTR, SENSOR_ATTR and SENSOR_ATTR_2?
Adding:
Joe Perches writes:
> On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>> > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this
>> > now:
>>
>> Good idea.
>>
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/i
On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:00 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this
> > now:
>
> Good idea.
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
> []
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 14:25 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig with this
> now:
Good idea.
> diff --git a/include/linux/moduleparam.h b/include/linux/moduleparam.h
[]
> @@ -188,6 +188,9 @@ struct kparam_array
> /* Default value inst
Theodore Ts'o writes:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > +static int queue_depth = 64;
>> > +module_param(queue_depth, int, 444);
>>
>> 444? Really Ted?
>
> Oops, *blush*. Thanks for catching that.
Erk, our tests are insufficient. Testbuilding an allmodconfig
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > +static int queue_depth = 64;
> > +module_param(queue_depth, int, 444);
>
> 444? Really Ted?
Oops, *blush*. Thanks for catching that.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 13:31 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> The current virtio block sets a queue depth of 64. With a
> sufficiently fast device, using a queue depth of 256 can double the
> IOPS which can be sustained. So make the queue depth something which
> can be set at module load time or via
The current virtio block sets a queue depth of 64. With a
sufficiently fast device, using a queue depth of 256 can double the
IOPS which can be sustained. So make the queue depth something which
can be set at module load time or via a kernel boot-time parameter.
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"
C
13 matches
Mail list logo
