linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix find_next_bit breakage on ppc and powerpc

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]

Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:55:12 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix find_next_bit breakage on ppc and powerpc

Ingo Molnar writes:
> 
> * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com> wrote:
> 
> > Powerpc (and ppc) have their have some code in their bitops.h which 
> > used to be exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this 
> > header instead.
> > 
> > This should also fix the compile problems due to the generic 
> > find_next_bit changes. Those were fixed by Thomas Gleixner in 
> > asm-generic/bitops/find.h earlier.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
> 
> thanks, applied. I dropped:

Why are powerpc (and ppc) patches
- not being sent to the powerpc maintainer (me)
- not being cc'd to the linuxppc-dev@...abs.org list
- ending up going through the x86 tree?

How come patches to unify x86_32 and x86_64 bitops need to end up
touching powerpc?

Paul.
--
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/