linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tip tree related)

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]

Date:	Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:32:35 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (tip
 tree related)

On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 20:13 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I still think that the memblock approach of having a separate data
> structure for all of memory and one for various used blocks is flawed,
> and that it would be a lot better to have a single data structure with
> attributes.  It would definitely make allocation saner.  Given that,
> there is a strong reason to keep as little of the guts exposed as
> possible.

I agree, and in fact, turning the current implementation into a single
list with attributes wouldn't necessarily be that hard as a first step. 

Ben.


--
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/