linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v14

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:	Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:32:00 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v14

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:25:05PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 11:00 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 
> > I will take it, but at the moment I'm rather unhappy about the response
> > from the community to Linus' complaint.
> > 
> > If existing platform maintainers can show that moving over to this will
> > result in a net reduction of code under arch/arm, then that will be good.
> > What I don't want to see at the moment is arch/arm increasing in size as
> > a result of any change.  We desperately need to see a reduction for the
> > next merge window.
> 
> It's a chicken and egg... platform maintainers wait for you to take it
> and you wait for them to take it :-)
> 
> It seems to me that this fits well into the category of "better common
> abstractions" that was discussed in the thread initiated by Linus as one
> of the ways to improve on the "clutter"...

That depends - sometimes creating generic stuff results in a net increase
in the overall size, and that's something that Linus also complained about.

According to linux-next, where we are at the moment with arch/arm is a
net increase of 6000 lines since the close of the last merge window,
and arch/arm is responsible for almost 75% of arch/ changes.  It looks
very much like the same situation which Linus complained about.

Can arch/arm continue to increase in size?  I think not.  We desperately
need patches which reduce the size of arch/arm, and we desperately need
them *now*.
--
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/