linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] xtensa: don't offer PARPORT

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: <4803BF9D.4070304@dawes.za.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:33:33 +0200
From:	Rogan Dawes <lists@...es.za.net>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	chris@...kel.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] xtensa: don't offer PARPORT_PC

Adrian Bunk wrote:

>  config PARPORT_PC
>  	tristate "PC-style hardware"
>  	depends on (!SPARC64 || PCI) && !SPARC32 && !M32R && !FRV && \
> -		(!M68K || ISA) && !MN10300
> +		(!M68K || ISA) && !MN10300 && !XTENSA

Pardon a possibly stupid question here, but would it not make more sense 
to code the architectures for which these various devices *are* 
possible, rather than requiring each architecture to go through the 
entire config file and add their own "we don't do this" for many entries?

As seen, it is easy for them to be missed, hence all these recent patches.

The way I look at it, it is a lot easier to require that the arch 
maintainer adds specific entries to get their particular hardware 
working, rather than go through a working setup and figure out how much 
they can take away before it breaks.

Rogan
--
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/