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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:24:39 -0400 From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: [PATCH] floppy: revert floppy disable halt warning On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > (cc some x86 greybeards) > > On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:38:53 -0700 > Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> wrote: > >> Remove the stupid floppy disable halt warning. It is meaningless since >> the API is local to floppy driver. Our boot scripts check for the >> floppy drive, and this causes the warning to trigger every time. This >> confuses support, breaks automated tests that look for backtraces on >> boot, and adds no value. >> >> The message is being displayed to the wrong audience, it looks like it >> was intended as a compromise of a long discussion on LKML about >> supporting older x86 hardware; but users don't know or understand what >> it is saying. >> >> If you want to change halt handling then just fix >> the floppy driver, don't whine about it. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c 2012-03-11 09:27:52.866459327 -0700 >> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c 2012-03-11 09:28:29.286579201 -0700 >> @@ -1037,7 +1037,6 @@ static void floppy_disable_hlt(void) >> { >> unsigned long flags; >> >> - WARN_ONCE(1, "floppy_disable_hlt() scheduled for removal in 2012"); >> spin_lock_irqsave(&floppy_hlt_lock, flags); >> if (!hlt_disabled) { >> hlt_disabled = 1; > > It would have been nice to have provided a pointer to this "long > discussion on LKML". I tried for a while, then gave up. > > In my search I came across > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1104.0/00461.html which > does indeed remove all the disable_hlt() code as well as the warning > and the feature-removal-schedule.txt record. Why didn't we merge that? > Why shouldn't we merge that now? And again 5 months later: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/28/313 Third time's a charm? I'd buy someone a beverage if we actually went through our planned feature removal here... josh -- 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