From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
tkjos@android.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 20:23:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
tkjos@android.com, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
tkjos@android.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: torvalds at linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian at brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190521202313.yKNeHH-yQRfeSrEJZ_QYEo-jJwI7nGnAbkoqsWdgHQU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019@9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
tkjos@android.com, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190521202313.iiIhpg5v5XHjPiPGguMriJu21DTLYzC76m9KiFEu4Yk@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
tkjos@android.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
tkjos@android.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 13:23:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190521164141.rbehqnghiej3gfua@brauner.io>
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:41 AM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> wrote:
>
> Yeah, you mentioned this before. I do like being able to specify an
> upper bound to have the ability to place fds strategically after said
> upper bound.
I suspect that's the case.
And if somebody really wants to just close everything and uses a large
upper bound, we can - if we really want to - just compare the upper
bound to the file table size, and do an optimized case for that. We do
that upper bound comparison anyway to limit the size of the walk, so
*if* it's a big deal, that case could then do the whole "shrink
fdtable" case too.
But I don't believe it's worth optimizing for unless somebody really
has a load where that is shown to be a big deal. Just do the silly
and simple loop, and add a cond_resched() in the loop, like
close_files() does for the "we have a _lot_ of files open" case.
Linus
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-21 20:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 102+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-21 11:34 [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range() Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` christian
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] tests: add close_range() tests Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 11:34 ` christian
2019-05-21 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 12:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range() Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` fweimer
2019-05-21 12:09 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:04 ` christian
2019-05-21 13:04 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` fweimer
2019-05-21 13:10 ` Florian Weimer
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:18 ` christian
2019-05-21 13:18 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` christian
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:23 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:07 ` Marc Gonzalez
2019-05-21 13:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 13:39 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` viro
2019-05-21 15:00 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:53 ` christian
2019-05-21 16:53 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` dhowells
2019-05-21 16:30 ` David Howells
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 16:41 ` christian
2019-05-21 16:41 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-21 20:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-22 8:12 ` christian
2019-05-22 8:12 ` Christian Brauner
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` viro
2019-05-21 19:20 ` Al Viro
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-21 19:59 ` willy
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-21 19:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-05-24 20:32 ` Michael Tirado
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAHk-=wgtHm4t71oKbykE=awiVv2H2wCy8yH0L_FsyhHQ5OSO+Q@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=ldv@altlinux.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tkjos@android.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.