| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090519131051.GA11318@think> Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:10:51 -0400 From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com> To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> Cc: devzero@....de, david@...g.hm, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches? On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 06:54:48PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > devzero@....de wrote: >> or is maintaining two different kernel packages a problem? >> > > Yes, distros hate the proliferation of kernel packages with different > config options, partly because of the combinatorial explosion (32 vs 64, > UP vs SMP, PAE vs non-PAE...). An explicit design intent of all the Xen > work is that it can be compile-time enabled without any (significant) > effect on native performance, so that the decision to enable Xen doesn't > have any downsides (either in terms of raw performance or maintenance of > the kernel package). There is a long list of CONFIG_* that had performance impacts when enabled later had that impact tuned away. Especially now that the source of the performance problem is understood, it makes sense to me to merge and then focus energy on fixing it in tree instead of spending time maintaining the out of tree patches. -chris -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists