| 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: <4B98326A.1020905@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:59:38 -0800 From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw_memmap.c On 03/10/2010 03:46 PM, Paul Mackerras wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:24:26PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> move it to kernel/fw_memmap.c from arch/x86/kernel/e820.c >> >> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> >> >> --- >> arch/x86/include/asm/e820.h | 130 ----- >> arch/x86/kernel/e820.c | 1142 -------------------------------------------- >> include/linux/bootmem.h | 2 >> include/linux/fw_memmap.h | 114 ++++ >> kernel/Makefile | 2 >> kernel/fw_memmap.c | 1134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Yuck. So you think we should use > 1100 lines of fw_memmap.c code > instead of the 541 lines of lib/lmb.c? Why exactly would that be > better? > even worse you should count early_res + fw_memmap YH -- 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