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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20101108165526.GA20229@ericsson.com>
Date:	Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:55:26 -0800
From:	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
To:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
CC:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] include/linux/kernel.h: Add config option for
 pr_fmt(fmt)

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:33:42AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 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.
> 
I pretty much came to the same conclusion. No objections here anymore either.

Guenter
--
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/