| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:19:27 -0700 From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] Weight-balanced tree On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 19:08 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 02/23/2011 07:02 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_WEIGHT_BALANCED_TREE) += wbtree.o > > > > > > then kvm can select it, and the impact on non-kvm kernels is removed. > > > > Then we'd have issues trying to build an external kvm module for a > > pre-existing non-kvm kernel. Do we care? > > Officially, no. > > What we typically do in these cases is copy the code into the kvm-kmod > compatibility layer and compile it if the kernel doesn't supply it (like > all older kernels regardless of config). > > > If we were to take such a > > path, I think the default should be on, kvm would depend on it, but we > > could add an option to disable it for EMBEDDED/EXPERT. Thanks, > > That would work as well. In retrospect, I suppose it doesn't really make sense to have it compiled in "just in case". I'll follow your first suggestion. Thanks, Alex -- 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