linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] backports: define C code backport version info using CPTCFG

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:	Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:57:25 +0100
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
Cc:	backports@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yann.morin.1998@...e.fr, mmarek@...e.cz, sassmann@...nic.de,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/13] backports: define C code backport version info
 using CPTCFG_

On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 19:18 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
> 
> In order to help unify the naming scheme for shared
> backports versioning information rely on the CPTCFG_
> prefix, when integration support gets added that will
> translate to the respective CONFIG_BACKPORT_ prefix.
> Kconfig opt env entries don't get propagated out, so
> we need to define these ourselves. This leaves all
> other names in place for packaging and just focuses
> on sharing on the C / header code.

What difference does this make? It'll break some scripting that we have
for sure (assuming the BACKPORTED_ prefix), so naturally I'd like to see
why it is necessary.

johannes

--
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/