linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree

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:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:26:09 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the
 luto-misc tree

On 07/15/16 09:28, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:49:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:43:26PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Ok, same results, it works, queuing this one, ack?
>>
>> Sure. Although I'm still somewhat puzzled by the duplicated effort of
>> __BITS_PER_LONG and BITS_PER_LONG.
> 
> Well, I also can't think of something to justify that, would have to dig
> deeper to figure out why that duplication was introduced.
> 
> Thanks, will queue this one up and be done with it. For the moment. :-)
> 

I'm wondering if there are issues related to compat.

	-hpa