From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757334Ab1I2RbV (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:31:21 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.44.51]:6435 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756537Ab1I2RbT (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:31:19 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id: references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to: x-operating-system:user-agent:x-system-of-record; b=aGLHsHQI71pC0dOdbcKYkP3/Q74Pvgm2c2cekAMnmLmQj+8PiQEr+Rdm6Z/QTeg81 yr2h+Wrt16oUx2h5ZX0uA== Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:31:03 -0700 From: Mandeep Singh Baines To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Will Drewry , Mandeep Singh Baines , Alasdair G Kergon , Milan Broz , dm-devel@redhat.com, Elly Jones , Olof Johansson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm: verity target Message-ID: <20110929173103.GA22515@google.com> References: <1316112359-6085-1-git-send-email-msb@chromium.org> <21505.1317245414@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21505.1317245414@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.32-gg508-generic (x86_64) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu) wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:02:05 CDT, Will Drewry said: > > > I was just curious if there is any interest in pulling this change, or > > if not, if there is any particular set of concerns, fixes, etc. > > Out of curiosity, how much of the stack does this end up eating? My root > filesystem is already ext4 on an LVM partition that's on a LUKS/dm-crypt > partition on a hard drive, and I'm sure somebody out there will have used xfs > instead - and then exported it via NFS or something. Are we going to get weird > stack overflows if people throw dm-verity into this sort of mix? > No. dm-verity uses very little stack since most of the code is running in a separate workqueue context. The _map call is pretty light. > > realize it's not a small amount of code to digest (though it is > > smaller than the post from last year[1]). Would re-posting with an > > added blob explaining the name be useful, > > Probably will need it to be merged, unless you set up an auto-reply that says > "Patch rejected, 'verity' is *not* a typo for 'verify'" ;) > > I'll hopefully have some more comments over the weekend if I get some spare > cycles. >