linux-kernel - Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] blackfin: how is the I-pipe code supposed to be built?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:31:12 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	"Zhang, Sonic" <Sonic.Zhang@...log.com>,
	"uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org" 
	<uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"philippe.gerum@...omai.org" <philippe.gerum@...omai.org>
Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] blackfin: how is the I-pipe code supposed 
 to	be built?

On Monday 11 June 2012 15:44:50 Paul Bolle wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-06-10 at 23:05 -0400, Zhang, Sonic wrote:
> > The IPIPE patch is part of the ADEOS real time kernel patch. The
> > common part of this patch hasn't been merged into mainline by the
> > maintainer Philippe Gerum, although the Blackfin architecture part
> > was. The relative Kbuild support and Kconfig symbols are defined in
> > the ADOES common patch.
> 
> What's the point of having code in the mainline tree, for over three
> years, without any Kbuild or Kconfig support?

because the Blackfin team cares about keeping ADEOS active throughout the 
rewrites/updates of core code.  it isn't hurting keeping the code in the 
arch/blackfin/ tree, and we're ok with any overhead it implies for the team.
-mike

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)