| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1175271610.5474.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:20:09 +0000 From: Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> Cc: Thomas Backlund <tmb@...driva.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why is arch/s390/crypto/Kconfig sourced when building for another arch ? On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 05:55 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > i'm betting the S390 folks would *really* hate that idea but, if you > look closely, the generic Kconfig file *already* has some > arch-dependent content: > > ... > config CRYPTO_DEV_PADLOCK > tristate "Support for VIA PadLock ACE" > depends on X86_32 <----- > ... Yes, but the padlock driver is located under drivers/crypto. The s390 crypto stuff is not. It is under arch/s390/crypto, thats why the Kconfig file is there... Both solutions (the current and your proposed) are somehow ugly. I don't care too much, where the Kconfig entries are, as long as it works. So if you're interested in changing it go forward and post a patch... Jan > i think it's a matter of deciding how to be consistent. either you > allow individual architectures to define their own additional Kconfig > files or you don't. mixing the two approaches is a recipe for > confusion. > > rday > > - 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