linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove CONFIG_FORCE

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: <1202763902.10004.13.camel@brick>
Date:	Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:05:02 -0800
From:	Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove CONFIG_FORCE_INLINING from defconfigs

On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 22:53 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:29:06PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > Option has been removed as of:
> > 185c045c245f46485ad8bbd8cc1100e986ff3f13 x86, core: remove CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING
> >...
> 
> I'm not a fan of patching defconfig's this way - this will only bring 
> tons of patch conflicts (consider what happens when anyone already has
> a completely updated defconfig in his tree and your patch goes in first).
> 

OK, I just figured it was my patch that went in removing it, so I should
submit a full-removal for completeness.  If it will just cause problems,
no need for it to be applied.

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/