| 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: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:49:08 -0500 From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> To: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] power: make goldfish option have a dependency on goldfish On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:38:41AM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: >> > I see. In that case, please feel free to send the patch to akpm with my >> > Nack and pointing to this discussion. If Andrew agrees and I was wrong >> > (and I'm really curious whether I am right or wrong), I will start >> > applying such patches in future. >> >> I didn't send the patch to akpm, but I did have a chance to ask akpm how >> dependencies should be used, and you can see his answer here: >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/7/456 > > Thanks for asking! FWIW, I won't be against CONFIG_AKPM. ;-) Something > like that will work: > > depends on GENERIC_HARDIRQS > depends on RESTRICT_PLATFORM && GOLDFISH > > But not that I think we really need this option, though. Whoever wants to Of course, it was only meant sarcastically, but the CONFIG_AKPM joke wasn't the important part of the email discussion though. Above, you asked "If Andrew agrees [that dependencies should describe the hardware/platform] ... I will start applying such patches in future." The important bit is Andrew's answer to your question: "...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." That seems quite clear that we should be using dependencies to properly describe the real system layout, and not offer up useless stuff. It is unclear to me how anyone could interpret it any different way -- i.e. GOLDFISH_POWER should depend on GOLDFISH, just like the other GOLDFISH_XYZ options do now. > (re)build the kernel is assumed to be knowledgeable enough to figure out > what needed/unneeded for the given HW. I, for example, use 'ARCH=foo This is another problem though -- as mentioned at kernel summit, more people testing newer kernels is desired, but the barrier to entry seems too high, and one of those barriers is Kconfig complexity. Assuming everybody is "knowledgeable enough" does not match reality. Paul. -- > allnoconfig' for stripped kernels, and then enable specific options which > I know I will need. Distros, however, they are using kind of > 'allmodconfig' anyways: > > ~$ du -sh /lib/modules/3.8.0-28-desktop/ > 148M /lib/modules/3.8.0-28-desktop/ > > One module less, one module more does not matter, but maintaining > CONFIG_AKPM will cost devs' time and efforts (especially figuring out what > is platform dep and what is not... I think it is easier to just keep > things simple. > > But again, I won't be against it -- at least it doesn't make my life > harder. :-) > > Cheers, > > Anton > -- > 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/ -- 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