linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86, microcode: __ref / _

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, 20 Jul 2015 17:54:23 +0200
From:	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86, microcode: __ref / __refdata cleanups

On 20 July 2015 at 09:40, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> * Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com> wrote:
>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c        |    2 +-
>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_early.c |    2 +-
>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Please merge this into the single x86 patch of the previous series that gets rid
> of __ref/__refdata. There's no need to create unnecessary churn.

Will do. Just thought it may make sense to split the series due to
different maintainers (x86 vs. microcode).

What's your opinion on [1], btw? Should patch 2 go through the tip tree as well?

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/19/214


Thanks,
Mathias
--
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/