linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] 8250: make probing for TXEN bug a config option

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070214004755.faa96e55.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:47:55 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Vitaly Wool" <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 8250: make probing for TXEN bug a config option

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:52 +0300 "Vitaly Wool" <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:

> On 2/14/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > I think this should be a module option/boot parameter, not a config-time
> > option.
> >
> >
> Hmm, why? I can't think of a platform where one 8250-compatible UART is
> problematic and another isn't :)
> 

Is it not possible that the same kernel package can be installed on systems
which do and don't need this feature?  If so, we don't want to force the
provider of that package to create two packages.

That, plus the chances of the package creator actually knowing about this
option aren't great.

Generally, if it can be done at runtime it is better to do so, no?
-
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/