From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/10] IPC: checkpoint/restore in userspace enhancements Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:11:08 -0700 Message-ID: <87a9vk3rqb.fsf@xmission.com> References: <20121018101543.16036.12221.stgit@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, manfred@colorfullife.com, hughd@google.com, jmorris@namei.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, devel@openvz.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, cmetcalf@tilera.com, linux-driver@qlogic.com, ron.mercer@qlogic.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, eparis@parisplace.org, tglx@linutronix.de, jitendra.kalsaria@qlogic.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com, "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" To: Stanislav Kinsbursky Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121018101543.16036.12221.stgit@localhost.localdomain> (Stanislav Kinsbursky's message of "Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:22:21 +0400") Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" You ignored all of my feedback that the first 7 messages of your patchset are unnecessary. In particular you did not attempt to focus your patchset on those operations that are most important. Upon examination it appears also that the 8th and 9th patches of the patchset are also unnecessary. And the 10th patch is just a test of the previous patches, making the 10th patch unneceesary without the rest. In net this entire patchset is unnecessary and a waste of your reviewers time. Once you have IPC checkpoint and restore working there may be a point to come back and optimize things. Please don't come back with any System V Interprocess Communication patches until you can report how much time is saved by each and every change. Eric