On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:57:15PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (05/03/16 14:40), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] > > > At least, we need sanity check code, still? > > > Otherwise, user can echo "garbage" > /sys/xxx/max_comp_stream" and then > > > cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_stream returns num_online_cpus. > > > > One more thing, > > > > User: > > echo 4 > /sys/xxx/max_comp_stream" > > cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams > > 8 > > sure, it can also be > > cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams > 5 > cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams > 6 > cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams > 7 > cat /sys/xxx/max_comp_streams > 3 > > depending on the availability of CPUs. but why would user space > constantly check max_comp_streams? > > > which is rather weird? > > > > We should keep user's value and return it to user although it's techically > > lying. IMO, it would be best way to prevent confusing for user until we > > removes max_comp_streams finally. > > well, I preferred to show the actual state of the device. besides, > does anyone really do > > write buffer to file > if (success) > read from file and compare with the buffer > > ? >
Okay, I want to go with your approach! Could you update zram.txt to reflect it? Thanks.
