linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] compat/compat-drivers/linux-next: fb skip_vt

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, 28 Mar 2013 11:25:11 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	florianschandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>,
	linux-fbdev <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	"backports@...r.kernel.org" <backports@...r.kernel.org>,
	cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"rodrigo.vivi" <rodrigo.vivi@...il.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	"rafael.j.wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compat/compat-drivers/linux-next: fb skip_vt_switch

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Julia! I'll be sure to try to add this to compat-drivers if the
>> upstream fb patch is not accepted. If it is accepted we would not need
>> this at all!
>>
>> > Then I guess there would be a similar rule for the false case?
>>
>> Nope, see that's the proactive strategy taken by the static inline and
>> hence the patch. compat would have a static inline for both cases, and
>> for the false case it'd be a no-op. If accepted upstream though then
>> we would not need any changes for this collateral evolution. However
>> *spotting* these collateral evolutions and giving you SmPL for them as
>> a proactive strategy might be good given that if these type of patches
>> are indeed welcomed upstream we'd then be able to address these as
>> secondary steps. If they are not accepted then indeed we'd use them to
>> backport that collateral evolution through both compat (adds the
>> static inlines) and compat-drivers (the SmPL).
>
> Probably I am missing something, since I haven't looked at the code in
> detail, bu wouldn't it be nicer to have a function call for the false
> case, if there is a function call for the true case?

Yes, and indeed we have that, its the same function call, in the
negative case its a no-op, in the newer kernels it wraps to modifying
the element as in the original code.

> In looking at the
> code, one could wonder why things are not done in a parallel way.

Not sure I get this.

  Luis
--
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/