Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Originaldate: Tue Mar 10, 2020 at 12:40 PM
Originalfrom: "Shakeel Butt" <shakeelb@google.com>
Original: =?utf-8?q?Hi_Daniel,
 =0D=0A=0D=0AOn_Thu,_Mar_5,_2020_at_1:16_PM_Daniel_Xu_?=
 =?utf-8?q?<dxu@dxuuu.xyz>_wrote:=0D=0A>=0D=0A>_It's_not_really_necessary_?=
 =?utf-8?q?to_have_contiguous_physical_memory_for_xattr=0D=0A>_values._We_?=
 =?utf-8?q?no_longer_need_to_worry_about_higher_order_allocations=0D=0A>_f?=
 =?utf-8?q?ailing_with_kvmalloc,_especially_because_the_xattr_size_limit_i?=
 =?utf-8?q?s_at=0D=0A>_64K.=0D=0A>=0D=0A>_Signed-off-by:_Daniel_Xu_<dxu@dx?=
 =?utf-8?q?uuu.xyz>=0D=0A=0D=0AThe_patch_looks_fine_to_me._However_the_com?=
 =?utf-8?q?mit_message_is_too_cryptic=0D=0Ai.e._hard_to_get_the_motivation?=
 =?utf-8?q?_behind_the_change.=0D=0A?=
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod62gypsxCYOpGsR6SWwp7roh8eEEKvZ8WNFtjB0bH=okg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 13:40:08 -0700
Cc:     "Cgroups" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Li Zefan" <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Kernel Team" <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kernfs: kvmalloc xattr value instead of kmalloc
From:   "Daniel Xu" <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
To:     "Shakeel Butt" <shakeelb@google.com>
Message-Id: <C17G1V88F2XD.EQFO8E8QX1YO@dlxu-fedora-R90QNFJV>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Shakeel,

On Tue Mar 10, 2020 at 12:40 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
>=20
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 1:16 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > It's not really necessary to have contiguous physical memory for xattr
> > values. We no longer need to worry about higher order allocations
> > failing with kvmalloc, especially because the xattr size limit is at
> > 64K.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
>
>=20
> The patch looks fine to me. However the commit message is too cryptic
> i.e. hard to get the motivation behind the change.
>

Thanks for taking a look. The real reason I did it was because Tejun
said so :).

Tejun, is there a larger reason?


Thanks,
Daniel