linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] boot: Put initcall_debug into its own Kconfig option DEBUG

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: <502AC233.5020105@xenotime.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:25:07 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
CC:	Thai Bui <blquythai@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] boot: Put initcall_debug into its own Kconfig option
 DEBUG_INITCALL

On 08/14/2012 01:55 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:13:00PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 08/13/2012 06:18 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:39:54PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> In any case, do you object to the introduction of a Kconfig option at
>>> all, or to that option defaulting to off?  In particular, would you
>>> object if the option only showed up if EMBEDDED, and defaulted to y?  At
>>> that point, you could reasonably expect that most users and distros will
>>> have it enabled, so you'll be able to count on asking people to enable
>>> it and send you the output.  Would that suffice?
>>
>> It's not one patch that I object to.  It's a "pile" of them.
>> and when does it stop?  or does it go on ad infinitum?
> 
> Sounds like you're describing Linux development in general, and I think
> the same argument of "as long as people keep wanting to work on it"
> applies.

touche.

>> One could make options to make many lines of code configurable,
>> but that would hardly be the right thing to do IMHO.
> 
> That seems like an argument better made about specific patches, rather
> than as a blanket statement ignoring the details of any particular
> patch.  It seems reasonable to me to evaluate the tradeoff of complexity
> versus space savings for each patch.  A complex patch that saves very
> little space certainly doesn't seem reasonable, and a simple patch that
> saves a pile of space seems very reasonable.  In this case, the space
> savings seems reasonable enough to justify a patch that seems incredibly
> non-invasive.  If the patch had a diffstat in the hundreds of lines, I'd
> understand the complaint.
> 
>>> The patch itself seems incredibly straightforward and non-invasive to
>>> me; it just stubs out the global variable and lets GCC fold away all the
>>> code.
>>>
>>> At this point, the kernel is running out of major things to cut out to
>>> save space; getting from ~200k (the current smallest kernel possible) to
>>> much less than that will require a pile of patches that save anywhere
>>
>> a pile being how many patches (roughly)?
> 
> At the moment, the team has a half-dozen patches in flight.  How many
> more will happen in the future depends on how well the remaining parts
> of a minimal kernel partition into large, self-contained, removable
> chunks.
> 
> In any case, could we perhaps pull this conversation back down out of
> the abstract and go back to discussing the specific patch in question?


Surely.  I have no gross objection to this specific patch.

regards,
-- 
~Randy
--
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/