| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:39:36 +0100 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> To: Mike Travis <travis@....com> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com> Subject: Re: [patch] x86: make UV support optional Hi! > The problem arises that if the option becomes too obscure (and never > enabled), then it won't get tested. We (as many companies do) rely on > distros to certify applications and security features using a standard > kernel, and if an option (such as X86_UV) causes any problems whatsoever, > they'll drop it and we no longer have that application certification. If SGI UV is really important, I'm sure you can ask distros to keep it enabled. > Currently, Ingo's test setup sets MAXSMP quite a bit and he's found > many problems with large NR_CPUS counts that we never would have found > ourselves. Please don't make that process any harder. Yeah, and remove config_386 too. Just hardcode it to y. No, sorry, I don't see why we should treat UV specially. > In fact, 13k is peanuts. Why don't you set something like "very minimal 13K is quite a lot, actually. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists