| 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: <20120709160212.GD15120@arm.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:02:12 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port Arnd, On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:32:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > We have a lot of reviewers that are familiar with the 32 bit code, so > I think the main strategy should be to spot duplicate code early > and make sure we deal with it individually. Examples for this are > probably the implementations for kvm and perf, which largely deal > with the same hardware on both architectures. Those definitely must > not get duplicated into mostly-identical files. In many cases, we're > moving those things into drivers/*, in other cases we might want to > use Makefile logic to include a sub-directory from one arch into another, > as we do for arch/um. I don't see why we would need to get a subdir from one into the other. If the SoCs would need some common drivers (like GPIO), they should go into drivers/ anyway. There is some perf code that could be shared (though not building a subdir as we have different instruction sets) but I would like that moved to a more generic place. -- Catalin -- 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