linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:30:16 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
CC:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support

All three .

On March 3, 2014 2:29:08 PM PST, Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 11:42 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 02/25/2014 10:45 AM, Mark Salter wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:30 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> I'd suggest spitting the core part out from the arch-specific
>parts. That
>> >> way, the core part can merged independently and architectures can
>move over
>> >> as they see fit. It also signals (at least to me) that, "hey, I
>should
>> >> probably review this" whilst my current stance is "there's a whole
>load of
>> >> stuff under mm/ that needs to be acked first".
>> >>
>> >> If you put the whole thing into next, you just run the risk of
>conflicts
>> >> with all the arch trees.
>> > 
>> > I've been thinking of breaking out the common bits and x86 bits and
>just
>> > going with that for now. There's no point in just doing the common
>bits
>> > because it won't get tested without at least one architecture using
>it.
>> > 
>> 
>> If you think it makes sense we could take the common bits + x86 and
>put
>> them through the -tip tree.  The other option would be to put the
>whole
>> thread in linux-next with Acks.
>> 
>> As far as x86 is concerned it looks like it is mostly just code
>> movement, so I'm happy giving my:
>> 
>> Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
>> 
>
>I going to send out a v5 with the arm bits dropped and Ack-bys added.
>There is still some work left there, so I think I'll redo the arm bits
>separately after once the common bits are in the kernel.
>
>Peter, is your Acked-by only for "[3/6] x86: use generic
>early_ioremap"?
>Or did you intend "[1/6] x86/mm: sparse warning fix for early_memremap"
>and/or "[2/6] mm: create generic early_ioremap() support" also?

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/