linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] bitops: add ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <201104211103.55929.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:03:55 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux390@...ibm.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bitops: add ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE guard

On Thursday 21 April 2011, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> Should we also kill CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE option comletely,
> then add the #ifdef for each find_*() in lib/find_next_bit.c and always build
> it unconditionally ?

I think that would be more consistent. It's not a big difference anyway, so
do it only if you feel motivated. There are a lot of other things that could
be changed this way, I'd only change it while reworking other aspects in order
to avoid accidentally breaking things.

	Arnd
--
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/