linux-kernel - Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present

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: <480CF4C8.60803@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:10:48 -0400
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@...e.de>,
	tglx@...utronix.de, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> sure - but no need to be rude and mark it BROKEN when we've got this much 
>>> better tool named "email". BROKEN is really just for cases where there's 
>>> no-one willing to fix things.
>> I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just trying to avoid putting an 
>> unnecessary burden on testers and just let Kconfig know not to pick 
>> this particular random path.  Obviously, Kconfig doesn't care, but 
>> it's clear BROKEN has negative associations; besides, it really is 
>> unnecessarily strong.
>>
>> Perhaps what we need is NORAND?
> 
> yep, i was thinking about CONFIG_BROKEN2 already :-)
> 
> then i came up with: CONFIG_NON_GENERIC. All code that can break a 
> normal bootup should be marked with that. Such as CONFIG_ROOT_NFS=y 
> [panics on bootup] or CONFIG_EUROTECH_WDT=y [crashes on bootup] or 
> CONFIG_SND_MTPAV [hangs on bootup] and the dozens of other config 
> options i had to map when trying to bring up an allyesconfig kernel for 
> the first time ;-)
> 
> auto-tests could then still build-test NON_GENERIC kernels but would not 
> attempt to boot them up.
> 

Well, that's slightly different.  I don't think it's fair to impose even 
compile-testing Voyager on the entire x86 development community.

	-hpa

--
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/