linux-kernel - Re: [kbuild-devel] [PATCH 25/33] kbuild: use POSIX BRE in headers install target

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]

Message-ID: <20070721221142.GB2912@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:11:42 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kbuild-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] [PATCH 25/33] kbuild: use POSIX BRE in headers install target

On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 06:03:00PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 7/21/07, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> >On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 03:21:43PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On 7/21/07, Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz> wrote:
> >> >On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 04:27:31AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> >[]
> >> >> if you want to make some micro optimization in the build install step,
> >> >> sure ... but functionally, the difference is irrelevant considering
> >> >> sed operates only on individual lines
> >> >
> >> >That was an attempt to support less sucking userspace in the kernel
> >> >development. More readable, more memory/cpu effective, more portable.
> >>
> >> while you could try and make a claim against memory/cpu effeciency, i
> >> fail to see how the first or last claims could possibly be backed up
> >>
> >> but again, if you feel that strongly about it, you're certainly free
> >> to post a patch
> >
> >I would much more prefer this functionality to be integrated into unifdef.
> >There is no good reason to have two different preprocesisng methonds, one
> >being the sed based one and the other the unidef one.
> >
> >A sinlge dedicated program that contian the sum of the functionality would
> >be faster too.
> 
> which functionality ?  normalizing of whitespace or all these
> linux-specific hacks ?  unifdef serves one specific function which is
> stated in its manpage: remove preprocessor conditionals from code.

At present the kernel has a private copy of unidef. So adjusting the
private copy for the needs of the kernels seems like a god plan.
We could even make it an extension so we do not break current
functionality.

	Sam
-
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/