| 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: <20070508164123.5c5056e3@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:41:23 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg K-H <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Please revert 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11 (PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE) On Tue, 8 May 2007 16:11:49 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote: > My patch (that started the discussion you mentioned and seems to have > been applied unchanged) contained both the wanted PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE > removal and a removal of some of your new infrastructure. > > Let's revert it, and I'll then send a new patch containing only the > PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE removal. Yes, that would be much preferred, thanks. > You meant to say: > depends on EXPERIMENTAL && !ATA && !IDE && !... > > Multithreaded probing on the PCI bus currently breaks too much kernel > code. > > And we've already seen how many systems it therefore breaks in practice. I'm not quite sure about that, that was with the older broken infrastructure. But I'm not too emotionally involved with pci multithread probing, so if the consensus is that it should be removed, that's fine with me. - 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