linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/20] mm: generic show

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:	Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:25:57 +0200
From:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
To:	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] mm: generic show_mem()

Hi,

Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:53:51PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> This implements a platform-independent version of show_mem().
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de>
>
> Looking at this again, does having this as a Kconfig option really make
> sense? We have no tristate in-tree users of this that I can see, wouldn't
> this be better off in lib/? It would be preferable not to let the
> HAVE_foo stuff get out of hand if we can avoid it.

I hate the current Kconfig usage, too.  But I figured, if I won't obey
on such decisions by people who maintain it, it won't have a chance to
get in.

So, what do you suggest?  Moving it to lib/ and have one simple #define
if the arch wants to use it or not?

	Hannes
--
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/