linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] x86: Configure out compilation of Simple Boot Flag support

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]

Date:	Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:09:35 +0100
From:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Linux-tiny@...enic.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] x86: Configure out compilation of Simple Boot
 Flag support

Le Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:29:58 +0100,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> a écrit :

> no strong feelings if the ACPI guys ack it - but i suspect the
> renaming of the function from acpi_parse_sbf to sbf_acpi_parse was
> unnecessary?

I rename acpi_parse_sbf() to sbf_acpi_parse() because the function was
moved from arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c, where pretty much all functions
are named acpi_*() to the file arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c, where all
the functions are named sbf_*(). However, I don't mind reverting that
renaming, I just thought it was cleaner, but I have no strong opinion
on it.

Any thoughts about the duplicate call to
acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_BOOT, acpi_parse_sbf) ?

Thanks for your comments,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Free Embedded Linux Training Materials
on http://free-electrons.com/training
(More than 1500 pages!)

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)