linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/4] Instrumentation menu removal, against 2.6.24-rc4-mm1 (mmotm)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:13:36 +0530
From:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] Instrumentation menu removal, against 2.6.24-rc4-mm1 (mmotm)

On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 02:27:41PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 10:32:55AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > This time I am taking no chance :
> > 
> > The instrumentation menu removal patchset here applies against 2.6.24-rc4-mm1
> > _and_ against mmotm (dated : stamp-2007-12-05-15-24) without problem.
> > 
> > We should hopefully be able to stop racing against other architecture specific
> > fixes done underneath. Please be aware that the following fix :
> > 
> > - fix-oprofile-configuration-breakage.patch
> > 
> > from MIPS did not show up in your mmotm tree. I guess you just sent it upstream
> > without keeping it in your own tree. I have applied the content of this fix in
> > my patchset (meaning : select HAVE_OPROFILE if !MIPS_MT_SMTC in
> > add-have-oprofile.patch), but I think you might have a reject if you still have
> > this fix-oprofile-configuration-breakage.patch in your local tree but not in
> > mmotm.
> 
> Mathieu,
> 
> With this patchset, a `make defconfig' results in:
> 
> CONFIG_OPROFILE=y
> CONFIG_HAVE_OPROFILE=y
> CONFIG_KPROBES=y
> CONFIG_HAVE_KPROBES=y
> 
> You probably also need to change the defconfigs...

Nevermind. If the intention is to key off the build based on CONFIG_<FOO>
and have the CONFIG_HAVE_<FOO> settings just to make the config simpler,
this change is fine. The side effect is just that the CONFIG_HAVE_<FOO>
will still have default settings even when CONFIG_<FOO> is not set.

Ananth
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/