linux-kernel - pci: Re: #2 (Re: More modaliases + patchtool))

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:	Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:55:15 +0300
From:	Dzianis Kahanovich <mahatma@...u.unibel.by>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: pci: Re: #2 (Re: More modaliases + patchtool))

Rusty Russell wrote:

> I think the best way to split this patch is by bus type.  Drop the #ifdef's
> if you think it's a good idea, do some compile testing, then forward to the
> specific maintainers for each type.  I'm happy to do that for you if you
> want (though these kind of patches are Morton-worthy IMHO).

About compile testing: I build all possible modules for x86 (32 & 64) on my
builds (distro-like) to reduse various PC configuration. Basic version of this
script used before.

Are I must check bools vs. tristates or just look to C-code?

I prepare PCI patch without checking for bools. All staging modules looks
unstrict (not walking deep) to relating with PCI. All normal modules is strict
PCI. I keep #ifdef in staging only. Also 2 new modules coming from linux-next
branch (1+1 - strict and unstrict), second attachment.

PS Are the better to inline patches vs. attachment?

-- 
WBR, Dzianis Kahanovich AKA Denis Kaganovich, http://mahatma.bspu.unibel.by/

View attachment "mods-pci.patch" of type "text/plain" (11192 bytes)

View attachment "mods-pci_next_2010917.patch" of type "text/plain" (831 bytes)