| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <m2mx60m99c.fsf@firstfloor.org> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:49:19 -0700 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: KGTP (Linux Kernel debugger and tracer) 20120424 release(doc update)[1/3]code Hui Zhu <teawater@...il.com> writes: Could you please split it down further. a 9kLOC patch is pretty daunting. >From a quick glance over some focus on simplication would be good: no own allocators (kernel has enough), no own types (that would remove asm), remove optional facilities like the private ring buffer. Some obsolete code like using semaphores vs mutexes. The variable list looks overcomplicated, just use an array? Generally too many macros I would say, try using inlines or removing them. Do you have any rarely used optional features that could be left out a version 1? If yes do that. I'm sure with some effort the 9kLOC could be much less. A patch half the size would be much easier to merge. There are some things that checkpatch will likely warn about. It would be good if you could describe the use case a bit better: this is for the kernel only or also user applications? -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- 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