linux-kernel - Re: CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES vs. CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091020134512.GB3930@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:45:12 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES vs. CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT


* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:

> What is the reason for having these, under various conditions 
> disagreeing (see i386_defconfig), but supposedly redundant 
> auto-selected config settings?

Mostly historic crappiness. Patches that clean up the situation would be 
welcome :)

	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/