linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: samsung: drop unknown Kconfig symbol

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:	Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:41:06 +0100
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>, Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: samsung: drop unknown Kconfig symbol

On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 22:22 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > But - repeating my message - none of those patches made the code in the
> > mainline tree buildable.
> 
> Which is a problem because...

Because in mainline there's code that can't be built and can't be run.

> (and note that you mean "selectable in
> Kconfig" here).

The Kconfig files in mainline don't define a symbol MACH_NEO1973_GTA01.
The related macro won't show up in a .config file generated by the
config tools, etc. So in mainline we have code that is basically
#ifdef'd out. "Can't be set with the config tools" and "unbuildable"
mean the same thing here.

> No.  Removing this code has negative value.  There is no meaningful cost
> in having it in mainline; your patch has been the biggest piece of work
> so far other than updates done by people actively working on the
> machine.  On the other hand the OpenMoko guys from time to time send
> useful patches and report interesting bugs (they sent a patch only last
> week in fact) and are definitely a user for the code (which is more than
> can be said for most of the legacy boards in mainline).
> 
> Please take a step back, think about what value would be brought by
> making this change.

My claim is just that code that has been unbuildable in the mainline
tree for over four years can be removed. But, as I said in a previous
message, I don't have any stake in the GTA01 code. I don't mind
revisiting all this at (say) the end of the v3.3 merge period.

Paul Bolle

--
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/