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:	Mon, 7 Feb 2011 18:52:00 -0800
From:	Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	<linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users

On 02/07/11 04:22, Mark Brown wrote:
> It is very rare to find a current system which is both sufficiently
> resource constrained to want to compile out power management support
> and sufficiently power insensitive to be able to tolerate doing so.
> Since having the configuration option requires non-zero effort to
> maintain, with ifdefery in most drivers, but it is used with vanishing
> rarity it is simpler to just remove the option.

Proof by assertion that it is used with vanishing rarity.

> Begin doing so by hiding it from users - this should attract complaints
> from any active users. The option is left disabled for the IA64 Ski
> simulator which is a partial simulator for IA64 systems mostly missing
> device support. This is a very limited use case which is unlikely to
> ever want to enable most drivers.

That is not a good method of getting feedback from users.

 1) It immediately removes the ability to have CONFIG_PM undefined,
    without first giving active users a chance to provide feedback.

 2) The removal of that ability is not obvious ("make oldconfig" does
    not say anything about CONFIG_PM).  It is easy to overlook a
    config change that happens silently.

 3) The active users may not move to a newer version of the kernel
    that contains this change until after it has been decided that
    there are no users of the config option since no one complained
    in a timely manner.

Would it be appropriate to use Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt
if this truly will be removed?

-Frank

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists