linux-kernel - Re: about relocs.c on x86

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: <1201776248.23523.29.camel@brick>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:44:08 -0800
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: about relocs.c on x86

On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:38 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > 
> > no strong opinion from me - but i think it should be obvious to the 
> > developer when they are looking at a .c file that it's 32-bit only (or 
> > 64-bit only). I.e. the default is that whatever .c file we look at is 
> > unified - and in that sense relocs.c breaks that general expectation.
> 
> I for one would like to see when stuff is 32 bit only and when
> shared across 32 and 64 bit. 
> And this type of info is useful when I do greps so hiding the information
> in a Makefiel is then no good.
> 
> It helps your understanding when you get the most correct picture of
> where a certain symbol is used - a functionality I often need.
> And this is by no menas limited to a narrow x86 view but across
> the full kernel.
> 
> So I, and this is no news for Ingo, would like to see what is
> solely for 32 bit to be marked as such.

Consider me outnumbered then, no worries.

> 
> And we are heading with full speed to the situation for x86 where
> the number of foo_32.c, foo_64.c are minimal.
> But that said we will likely see a small decrease in speed now.

Well, we're doing our best ;-)

> 
> As for the Makefiles - I looked at them last time and only
> issue that kept me away for unifying them was that I did
> not understand the linking order requirments and I did not see
> enough benefit at that time to invest the time to unify them.
> Each of the remaining Makefile should be unifyable in less
> than 10 steps each. It is just work that are waitng to be done.

The continued unification will probably make this obvious over time
anyway.

Cheers,

Harvey

--
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/