linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static

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: <4D24CF95.5090006@caviumnetworks.com>
Date:	Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:07:49 -0800
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, tglx@...utronix.de,
	andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com, rth@...hat.com,
	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
	avi@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, sam@...nborg.org,
	michael@...erman.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jump label: introduce static_branch()

On 01/05/2011 11:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * David Daney<ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 01/05/2011 11:14 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * H. Peter Anvin<hpa@...or.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/05/2011 09:43 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 09:32 -0800, David Daney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch will conflict with the MIPS jump label support that Ralf has
>>>>>> queued up for 2.6.38.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you disable that support for now? As Linus said at Kernel Summit,
>>>>> other archs jumped too quickly onto the jump label band wagon. This
>>>>> change really needs to get in, and IMO, it is more critical to clean up
>>>>> the jump label code than to have other archs implementing it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ralf is really good... perhaps we can get the conflicts resolved?
>>>
>>> Yep, the best Git-ish way to handle that is to resolve the conflicts whenever they
>>> happen - i.e. whoever merges his tree upstream later. No need for anyone to 'wait'
>>> or undo anything.
>>>
>>
>> There will be no git conflicts, as the affected files are disjoint.
>
> I regularly resolve semantic conflicts in merge commits - or in the first followup
> commit.
>

But I am guessing that neither you, nor Linus, regularly build MIPS 
kernels with GCC-4.5.x *and* jump label support enabled.  So how would 
such semantic conflict ever be detected?  I would expect the conflict to 
first occur when Linus pulls Ralf's tree.

I don't expect anybody to magically fix such things, so whatever 
happens, I will test it and submit patches if required.

Thanks,
David Daney
--
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/