linux-kernel - [patch][rfc] depend pcspkr on CONFIG

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ADA3593.4010607@aknet.ru>
Date:	Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:22:27 +0400
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
To:	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor-oss@...cast.net>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Subject: [patch][rfc] depend pcspkr on CONFIG_EMBEDDED

Hello.

As most of the problems with snd-pcsp
are now settled and the major distros
are starting to unblacklist it and use
instead of pcspkr:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539767
I'd like to do that sneaky thing.
The major argument for keeping pcspkr
I've heard, was that it doesn't require
the entire ALSA stack, and in this
case I think it is usefull only with
CONFIG_EMBEDDED. Right now it is a common
situation when the both modules are
built, and whichever gets loaded first,
works.
So can something like the attached
patch be applied?

---
Depend pcspkr on CONFIG_EMBEDDED to reduce
the chances of both the pcspkr and snd-pcsp
being built together. pcspkr is good only
by not requiring ALSA; apart from that,
snd-pcsp does everything.

Signed-off-by: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>

View attachment "pcspkr_dep.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (712 bytes)