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]

Date:	Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:11:08 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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)

On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 04:06:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 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.
> 
> i've added your full patch meanwhile - maybe we can get away with it. 
> 
> Still, if you see any easy way to do a straightforward series of ~40 
> patches that changes one link rule per patch then that would be great 
> and we could add them as an easier-to-bisect replacement for this one 
> large-scope patch.

If it turns out to cause troubles I will redo it in a few smaller steps.
But I will have to do it by hand so most likely less than 10 steps.

	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/