linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Centralize the selection for debugging semaphores.

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, 31 Jan 2007 15:00:00 +0100
From:	"Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc:	"Linux kernel mailing list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	dhowells@...hat.com, rth@...ddle.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Centralize the selection for debugging semaphores.

On 31/01/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> > On 31/01/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >   Centralize the kernel config option for debugging semaphores and
> > > modify the macro for frv to use that config option instead.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com>
> > [..]
> > > +config DEBUG_SEMAPHORE
> > > +       bool "Semaphore debugging"
> > > +       depends on DEBUG_KERNEL
> > > +       default n
> > > +       help
> > > +         If you say Y here then semaphore processing will issue lots of
> > > +         verbose debugging messages.  If you suspect a semaphore problem or
> > > a
> > > +         kernel hacker asks for this option then say Y.  Otherwise say N.
> > > +
> > > +         At the moment, this is implemented only by alpha and frv.
> >
> > IMHO this option should stay in arch/{alpha,frv}/Kconfig.debug
>
> any particular reason?

Only this
"At the moment, this is implemented only by alpha and frv."

It depends on architecture.

> and note that it's currently *not* in
> arch/frv/Kconfig.debug -- it's hard-coded with a macro name that's not
> the same as the config option, and i don't really see the advantage of
> having each architecture implement precisely the same feature in
> different and incompatible ways.  but i'm willing to be convinced
> otherwise.
>
> rday

Regards,
Michal

-- 
Michal K. K. Piotrowski
LTG - Linux Testers Group
(http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/)
-
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/