linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86: use arch/x86/include

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:	Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:32:01 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: use arch/x86/include


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi x86 guys.
>>>
>>> It turned out to be easy to enable um to use arch/x86/include so here 
>>> is a git pull.
>>
>> hm, we have a _ton_ of changes to include files queued up already, so  
>> this is rather inconvenient.
>
> Git *should* be able to track those changes across a rename and even 
> with a rename on one branch and changes on another; in my experience 
> it works well for filename renames, but git doesn't understand 
> directory renames at all, so new files do have to be moved to their 
> new locations manually.

yes, it copes in some cases - but i've had rather bad experiences with 
it.

the reason i raised this is because i tried to pull Sam's renames, and 
they created 48 conflicts.

>> I missed the discussion on this, what's the point of renaming all these 
>> files?
>
> I know there has been talk about this on and off for a long time (to 
> get all the arch code into arch/).  I don't know if there are any 
> mechanical reasons for it, on top of that.

hm, seems rather pointless to me, i thought there might be some better 
reasons for it. Historically we've put all include files into 
include/asm-* - why upset the decade-long status quo now without strong 
technical reasons?

	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/