linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

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: <20120709145126.313d1574@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:51:26 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

> > These are the same reasons the x86_64 people gave and regretted later.
> 
> I would not compare the x86_64 extension to the AArch64 architecture.

It's not an architecture specific observation. I was just observing that
you were following a pattern which in all other cases ended up with a
merged tree.

Now it could be your tree is different, it could be that the right
approach in all these cases is actually to do a new tree and merge five
years later - I don't know.

It's your (aarch64 folks) project at the end of the day and you who have
to keep all the fixes and errata and whatnot in sync between the two
trees and I don't personally care too much which way it happens.

Alan
--
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/