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: <20120710163358.6ae4a576@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:33:58 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/36] AArch64 Linux kernel port

> In the AArch32 kernel port many implementation decisions newer
> architectures were made in a way that preserves backwards compatibility
> to over 15 years ago (and for *good* reasons, ARMv4 hardware is still in
> use). But keeping the same decisions in AArch64 is wrong.

Same argument as x86-32 v x86-64. Same issues about compatibility.

> AArch64 is also in its early days with a lot of developments to come
> (and still waiting for hardware). Until we really know the final shape,
> the AArch64 code base must allowed to evolve independently from the
> AArch32 one.

That is one area where while the merge was needed and a lot of work the
original split may well have been sensible for x86-64 as well.

> The initial target is servers (see the companies that have announced
> plans around ARMv8) but I agree, we may see it in other devices in the
> future. But as the maintainer I have no plans to support a 32-bit SoC on
> an AArch64/ARMv8 system (which may or may not support AArch32 at kernel
> level). If an AArch64 SoC would share some devices with an AArch32 SoC,
> such code will go to drivers/.

What plans to other maintainers and board vendors have ? Any design choice
has to cope with these happening if a third party goes and does it.

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/