linux-kernel - Re: Sharing header files -- arch/arm/mach-generic ?

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: <201204232015.41963.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:15:41 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, wd@...x.de
Subject: Re: Sharing header files -- arch/arm/mach-generic  ?

On Monday 23 April 2012, Pavel Machek wrote:
> I have new architecture I'd like to merge into the mainline. It has
> some code very similar to existing plaforms (for example
> real differences to mach-realview/platsmp.c are two lines.)
> 
> Is that a problem?
> 
> Should mach-generic/platsmp.c be created, so code can be better
> shared? Or are the code pieces small enough that this duplication can
> be ignored?

Hi Pavel,

I'd suggest you just post the code with the duplicate files
for review at first, and then we can discuss what to do with them.
As Russell mentioned, the code might not actually be ideal
in the duplicate version so you end up rewriting it, or there
might be a different solution that someone finds when we see the
patches.

	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/