Hi Willy,
On 08/22/2016 09:35 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:15:35AM +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Willy,
>>
>> Might you have a chance to further review of this patch series?
>> It would be great if you could, since much of it touches chan
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:15:35AM +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Willy,
>
> Might you have a chance to further review of this patch series?
> It would be great if you could, since much of it touches changes
> made by you earlier.
Well, all I did there was implementin
On 08/21/2016 10:33 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 08/20/2016 01:17 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> On 08/20/2016 08:56 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2016 08:30 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't do the (size > pipe_max_size) check
Hi Willy,
Might you have a chance to further review of this patch series?
It would be great if you could, since much of it touches changes
made by you earlier.
Thanks,
Michael
On 08/19/2016 05:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Since you're changing this code, it's probably worth sw
On 08/20/2016 01:17 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 08/20/2016 08:56 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 08/19/2016 08:30 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
Is there any reason why we couldn't do the (size > pipe_max_size) check
before calling account_pipe_buffers()?
No reason that I ca
On 08/20/2016 08:56 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Vegard,
>
> On 08/19/2016 08:30 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> On 08/19/2016 07:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> The limit checking in pipe_set_size() (used by fcntl(F_SETPIPE_SZ))
>>> has the following problems:
>> [...]
>>
Hi Vegard,
On 08/19/2016 08:30 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 07:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> The limit checking in pipe_set_size() (used by fcntl(F_SETPIPE_SZ))
>> has the following problems:
> [...]
>> @@ -1030,6 +1030,7 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_in
On 08/19/2016 05:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Since you're changing this code, it's probably worth swapping the size
> check and capable() below to save a function call in the normal path :
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:25:35PM +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> +i
On 08/19/2016 07:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
The limit checking in pipe_set_size() (used by fcntl(F_SETPIPE_SZ))
has the following problems:
[...]
@@ -1030,6 +1030,7 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
unsigned long arg)
{
struct pipe_buffer *bufs
Hi Michael,
Since you're changing this code, it's probably worth swapping the size
check and capable() below to save a function call in the normal path :
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 05:25:35PM +1200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> + if (nr_pages > pipe->buffers) {
> + if (!capab
The limit checking in pipe_set_size() (used by fcntl(F_SETPIPE_SZ))
has the following problems:
(1) When increasing the pipe capacity, the checks against the limits
in /proc/sys/fs/pipe-user-pages-{soft,hard} are made against
existing consumption, and exclude the memory required for the
11 matches
Mail list logo
