linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/36] Hexagon: Add support for Qualcomm Hexagon architecture

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: <20110818003108.GA4049@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:31:08 -0500
From:	Richard Kuo <rkuo@...eaurora.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/36] Hexagon: Add support for Qualcomm Hexagon
 architecture

> It's good to finally see the source for this, and I have a good feeling
> about the quality of the code, so it should not be a problem to resolve
> the remaining issues in time to get it into the next merge window.
> 
> I have gone over all patches once now and commented about everything
> that looked odd or wrong. Most of the issues are really just small
> changes. Removing support for the legacy syscalls is an easy change
> in the kernel but it might require significant changes in the libc
> implementation. It's not a big problem if your libc still requires the
> old interfaces at the time the architecture gets merged upstream,
> that will just mean that you have to have a small kernel patch to add
> them back in while transitioning to the new libc.

Thanks for reviewing the patches!  I've started working on some of the
feedback and will be answering other questions as I get to them.

> As I commented on patch 33, I think the platform specific patches should
> not get merged before everything is converted to device tree based
> probing. This should also not keep the rest from going in. I think it
> would be good to do the conversion together with the ARM-MSM platform
> that seems to share a lot of the device specific code, and it would
> be bad to end up with duplicate work here or (worse) with incompatible
> DT bindings.

OK, sounds fair.  I have been working on devtree code on the side, but for
this first submission, it sounds like I'll just gut the platform code
out.


Thanks,
Richard Kuo


-- 

Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/