linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] include/linux/kernel.h: Add config option for pr

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101108133342.7217866c@endymion.delvare>
Date:	Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:33:42 +0100
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] include/linux/kernel.h: Add config option for    
 pr_fmt(fmt)

Hi Joe,

Sorry for the late answer.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:10:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Besides, linux-next is meant for integration testing. We already know
> > that the change will integrate fine, in that it won't cause a build
> > failure or runtime crash. We also know that, without the tree-wide
> > cleanup of many driver, the change will cause duplicate prefixes in
> > many messages.
> > 
> > There's little point in testing something we know will not be good
> > enough. Better prepare all the driver patches, and test the whole thing
> > when it's ready. I know it will be a very large and intrusive patchset,
> > but this can certainly be done with Andrew's support.
> 
> I think you underestimate the time, effort and acceptance
> levels by the various arches and maintainers required.
> 
> Also, it's not just drivers, it's arch, lib, and kernel.
> (...)

I've had time to think about it all some more, and I have to admit that
my counter-proposal doesn't really fly. Changing everything at once
throughout the whole kernel tree is simply too difficult.

So I hate to admit it, but your initial proposal was certainly better,
because it can be done one subsystem at a time. So I think we should
forget about my objections and go on with your first patchset.

That being said, to avoid messing up the kernel tree completely, I
think we need a clearly defined plan before we start. This plan should
include:
* A clear statement of goal.
* An explanation of the steps we have to go through to reach it.
* An rough schedule of when it will happen (in either time or kernel
  versions) with a deadline after which changing the default definition
  of pr_fmt() will be considered OK.

And the plan should be made known to all subsystem maintainers, with
publicly visible progress tracking. Otherwise I fear it will take
forever to reach your goal.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/