linux-kernel - Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present

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, 21 Apr 2008 10:42:38 -0500
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error

On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:00 -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> I shouldn't send bug reports at 3 in the morning...
> >>
> >> Attached is the .config for both Voyager build errors I reported.
> > 
> > thanks, the three patches below should fix it.
> > 
> > i ended up excluding Voyager configs from our test space some time ago 
> > (and VISWS as well - there's one more visws fix in x86.git), that's how 
> > this broke. These subarchitectures seem not to be used at all and the 
> > code wont boot on normal PCs. We could mark it BROKEN but the fix seems 
> > simple in any case.

I did actually try to avoid these problems by booting the -mc tree on
voyager, but I note that none of these issues showed up in that tree the
last time I did this (admittedly about 3 weeks ago because of various
conferences etc).
 
> I talked to jejb about this, and pretty much the consensus was that if 
> it breaks, mark it BROKEN, and let him come back and catch up.  Under 
> those conditions, I'm willing to keep it in the tree.

I didn't say mark it as BROKEN ... I did say I'd catch up.  However,
it's usually best to begin trying to fix voyager around the -rc1 phase
since that's when the tree becomes stable again.

> VISWS is another matter.  It's entirely possible I have the only 
> remaining VISWS in my garage; we have at least not been able to locate 
> another.  Not that we have tried all that hard.
> 
> If there are no VISWS' left, we should just unload the code.

I certainly don't have one.  I just designed the subarchitectures to be
able to support it because it was a bit far away from x86 references,
and Andrey Panin was interested in supporting it at the time ... if he's
no longer doing that, then it can be removed.

James


--
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/