From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D746B0062 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 15:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:30:45 -0700 From: "Larry H." Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] Support for sanitization flag in low-level page allocator Message-ID: <20090521193045.GJ10756@oblivion.subreption.com> References: <20090520183045.GB10547@oblivion.subreption.com> <4A15A8C7.2030505@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A15A8C7.2030505@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar List-ID: On 15:17 Thu 21 May , Rik van Riel wrote: > Sensitive to what? Allocation failures? > > Kidding, I read the rest of your emails. However, > chances are whoever runs into the code later on > will not read everything. > > Would GFP_CONFIDENTIAL & PG_confidential be a better > name, since it indicates the page stores confidential > information, which should not be leaked? Definitely, I see your point here and this will be modified in the code. GFP_CONFIDENTIAL and PG_confidential is more specific and won't raise any confusion when people read the code or want to use the flags. Thanks for the input. Larry -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org