linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_OPTIMIZE

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:	Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:13:57 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	airlied@...il.com, steve@...acs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING

* David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: "Dave Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:16:31 +1000
> 
> > just because something lands in the core kernel tree doesn't mean it 
> > is actually perfect, far from it..
> 
> This is entirely missing the point.
> 
> We get patches reviewed before they hit the tree, not afterwards.
> 
> Ingo is making that impossible.

hrmpf. David, i can only repeat that what you say is plain out false. 
The CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING patch was posted to lkml originally, about 
two months ago:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/3/122

then it was re-posted at the time of the pull request as well:

  http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/911104?page=last

and i just posted a (trivial) RFC patch to lkml today that would turn it 
into a generic feature:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/27/47

so i'm not sure what this big fuss is about ...

Moving this (now apparently hotly desired!) feature from 
arch/x86/Kconfig to init/Kconfig is no big deal and lets continue with 
more important issues. No puppies got hurt, really :)

You can use the patch i posted or you've got my conceptual Acked-by for 
touching arch/x86/Kconfig or can do it without asking - i dont mind -, 
it's an obviously correct change that i not only wanted all along but 
also implemented that way originally (twice!), until stupid lkml 
objections forced it into arch/x86 as i went the path of least 
resistance.

Yes, in hindsight, i should have stood up for that change and should 
have made a stink about it on linux-arch but there's just so many 
flamewars that fit into a day ;-)

	Ingo
--
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/