linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86: introduce a set of platform feature flags

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]

Message-ID: <20090626111731.539f963e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:17:31 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86: introduce a set of platform feature flags

> Which bit is not clear? We've been continuously 'driverizing' the 

What do you mean by "driverizing". You keep using your made up word but
since nobody else knows what you mean its not productive to have the
discussion using invented terms like that.

> core' drivers (many of the core kernel facilities are not available 
> yet at this early stage), but properly abstracted, function vector 
> driven approaches are still a must.

So like the PPC machine vector ?

> This series of patches increases the mess in that area, and that's a 
> step backwards. It sprinkles the code with a fair amount of 'if 
> (feature_x)' conditions instead of cleanly separating out proper 
> abstractions.

That makes sense
--
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/