linux-kernel - Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 May 2009 09:10:51 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	devzero@....de, david@...g.hm, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 06:54:48PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> devzero@....de wrote:
>> or is maintaining two different kernel packages a problem?
>>   
>
> Yes, distros hate the proliferation of kernel packages with different  
> config options, partly because of the combinatorial explosion (32 vs 64,  
> UP vs SMP, PAE vs non-PAE...).  An explicit design intent of all the Xen  
> work is that it can be compile-time enabled without any (significant)  
> effect on native performance, so that the decision to enable Xen doesn't  
> have any downsides (either in terms of raw performance or maintenance of  
> the kernel package).

There is a long list of CONFIG_* that had performance impacts when
enabled later had that impact tuned away.  Especially now that
the source of the performance problem is understood, it makes sense to
me to merge and then focus energy on fixing it in tree instead of
spending time maintaining the out of tree patches.

-chris
--
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/