linux-kernel - Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

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, 4 Jan 2009 09:09:31 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:	Matthieu CASTET <matthieu.castet@...rot.com>,
	Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Embedded Linux mailing list <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 07:45:34PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> > With respect to your three patches the plan is to:
> > - add the updated timeconst patch to kbuild-next
> > - add the updated cpu-feature patch to kbuild-next
> >
> > - the patch touching headers_install will not be merged.
> >   The way forward for headers_install is to combine the
> >   unifdef feature and the header modifications.
> 
> Since you're turning down an existing patch in favor of a theoretical patch, I 
> assume you have plans to do this yourself?

If noone else beats me I will do so - yes.
> 
> >   And this must be in a single program that can process
> >   all headers in one go so the install process becomes so fast
> >   that we do not worry about if it was done before or not.
> >   Then we can avoid all the .* files in the directory
> >   where we isntall the headers.
> 
> What if they run out of disk space halfway through writing a file and thus it 
> creates a short file (or a 0 length file where the dentry was created but no 
> blocks could be allocated for the write)?

Then they fail and make will know. Then may leave a file or 100
but it still failed. At next run everything will be done right
assuming the culprint has been fixed.

> I can try to make the shell version more readable, and more powerful.  It's 
> already noticeably faster than the perl version.  I have no objections to 
> making unifdef do all of this, I just haven't got any interest either.

I have no interest in merging a shell version.
I clearly expressed above that we need a _single_ program doing
all of the preparations and we do not need a reimplmentatio of the
current headers_install.
I also explained why.

	Sam
--
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/