| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:37:32 +0100 From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...top.org, jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, wmb@...mworks.com, jg@...top.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Open Firmware device tree virtual filesystem >> So please do this crap right. > > I strongly agree. Nowadays, both powerpc and sparc use an in-memory > copy > of the tree (wether you use the flattened format during the trampoline > from OF runtime to the kernel or not is a different matter, we created > that for the sake of kexec and embedded devices with no real OF, but > the > end result is the same, a kernel based tree structure). Are you really suggesting that using a kernel copy of the device tree is the correct thing to do, and the only correct thing to do -- with the sole argument that "that's what the current ports do"? > There is already powerpc's /proc/device-tree and sparc's openpromfs, > I'm > all about converging that to a single implementation (a filesystem is > fine) We all agree on that, the OLPC people too, they just didn't have time yet. > that uses the in-memory tree. ...but to that I can't agree. Segher - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists