Re: [PATCH 2/6] ipc: reorganize initialization of kern_ipc_perm.seq

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:12:36 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > On 07/05/2018 10:36 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Hi Manfred,
> > >
> > > The series looks like a significant improvement to me. Thanks!
> > >
> > > I feel that this code can be further simplified (unless I am missing
> > > something here). Please take a look at this version:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/dvyukov/linux/commit/f77aeaf80f3c4ab524db92184d874b03063fea3a?diff=split
> > >
> > > This is on top of your patches. It basically does the same as your
> > > code, but consolidates all id/seq assignment and dealing with next_id,
> > > and deduplicates code re CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE. Currently it's a
> > > bit tricky to follow e.g. where exactly next_id is consumed and where
> > > it needs to be left intact.
> > > The only difference is that my code assigns new->id earlier. Not sure
> > > if it can lead to anything bad. But if yes, then it seems that
> > > currently uninitialized new->id is exposed. If necessary (?) we could
> > > reset new->id in the same place where we set new->deleted.
> > Everything looks correct for me, it is better than the current code.
> > Except that you didn't sign off your last patch.
> >
> > As next step: Who can merge the patches towards linux-next?
>
> Me.
>
> But it's unclear which patchset we're talking about.  What's the plan
> here?  To combine both efforts?

I'm thinking this series will conflict with the ipc rhashtable fixes I
sent out earlier (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/21/727).

Thanks,
Davidlohr