linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] early_printk: consolidate random copies of identical code

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, 7 Mar 2013 13:35:42 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Cc:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] early_printk: consolidate random copies of identical
 code

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:50:23 -0500 Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> wrote:

> This brings up a recurring question.  I was tempted to just go make
> CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK depend on CONFIG_PRINTK, but lately I've faced
> pushback when trying to "fix" things like seeing ARM OMAP USB options
> for an x86 build[1], and GOLDFISH virt drivers being offered even
> when the end user already said no to GOLDFISH[2].
> 
> Do we want to use dependencies to reflect the real world layout of
> platforms/systems, or do we want to go the minimal dependency
> approach, where we are building sparc specific drivers on mips just
> because we can?
> 
> I think the former is better from a user specific point of view, as
> the maze of Kconfig is better as a tree topology with branches that
> have clear dependencies that exclude them, versus it being a flat
> monolithic space where anything can select anything.
> 
> Arguments I've heard for the latter seem to be developer centric
> (i.e forcing wider build coverage on the population as a whole, etc)

For me personally, I really really want good compilation coverage.  It
drives me bats when I merge a patch but have to jump through a series
of hoops (such as not having the appropriate cross-compiler!) to be
able to build the thing.

otoh, offering useless stuff to non-kernel-developers has downsides
with no balancing benefit, and we really should optimise things for
our users because there are so many more of them than there are of us.

I wish we could do both :(   CONFIG_AKPM?
--
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/