linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH - RFC] x86: unify arch/x86/kernel/Makefile(s)

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: <20071230145517.GT16946@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:55:17 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH - RFC] x86: unify arch/x86/kernel/Makefile(s)


* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:

> Combine the 32 and 64 bit specific Makefiles in one file. While doing 
> so link order was (almost) preserved on 32 bit but on 64 bit link 
> order changed a lot.
> 
> Patch was checked with defconfig + allyesconfig builds. The same .o 
> files were linked in these configurations.
> 
> To keep readability of the Makefiles a few Kconfig symbols was 
> added/modified and it was checked that they were not used anywhere 
> else.

hm, i agree with this change, but would it be possible to split this up 
into gradual steps, to change the rules on 64-bit one by one? That would 
make it much more bisectable. In our experience changes to the link 
order have a high likelyhood of breaking stuff, as we've got so many 
implicit initcall dependencies that are not explicitly spelled out.

	Ingo
--
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/