linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 2/6] powerpc: convert little-endian bitops macros to static inline functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:08:18 +0900
From:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 2/6] powerpc: convert little-endian bitops macros to
 static inline functions

2011/2/7 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>:
> On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:56 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> (This patch is intended to be folded into the patch in -mm:
>> powerpc-introduce-little-endian-bitops.patch)
>>
>> The little-endian bitops on powerpc are written as preprocessor
>> macros with the cast to "unsigned long *".
>> This means that even non-pointers will be accepted without an error, and
>> that is a Very Bad Thing.
>>
>> This converts the little-endian bitops macros to static inline functions
>> with proper prototypes.
>
> No objection to the powerpc variant of the patches. What is the status
> with the wholes series tho ? Does it looks like its going to be
> accepted ? Do you expect my Ack and will merge the whole thing at once ?

The whole series now seems acceptable since I fixed two issues
that Linus found annoying. (the naming and the change of prototype)

Please give your ack if it is OK.

I should have fixed them quickly so that the series went upstream
in the last merge windows. But I couldn't because I spent some time
fixing and compile testing for a bisection hole.

> Does it break bisection unless it's merged as one single giant patch ?

I think there is no known problem that breaks bisectability by
this patch series.
--
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/