linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove __init modifier from header declaration

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080101165732.GB3488@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:57:32 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	glommer@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, ehabkost@...hat.com,
	jeremy@...p.org, avi@...ranet.com, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	ak@...e.de, chrisw@...s-sol.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	hpa@...or.com, zach@...are.com, roland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remove __init modifier from header declaration


* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:

> > thanks, applied.
> > 
> > btw., people have been talking about reducing the include file mess 
> > for nearly a decade now,
> 
> Some of us are actually doing it. ;-)

sorry, this was really not meant to slight your contributions in this 
area in any way :-) I'm just judging by the spaghetti still hanging 
around in asm-x86/*.h, and the 'fun' we have with paravirt and its type 
dependencies - and the periodic messups we have with macros. (and many 
macros are not inlines due to ugly dependencies.)

> > So include file dependency flattening patches would be more than 
> > welcome as well.
> 
> Yup! Provided they're compile-tested sufficiently well.

as long as it builds/boots on your box with a single convenient .config 
of yours, we can stick such patches into x86.git and work out all the 
build failures it might cause.

> > (and unlike unification patches they have no expectation of being 
> > 100% perfect, so a natural ping-pong of fixes, until the changes are 
> > fully correct, would be natural.)
> 
> That way you'll never clean anything especially during merge window. 
> ;-)

hm, what do you mean?

	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/