linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 16/76] ARC: Syscall support (no-legacy-syscall ABI)

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]

Date:	Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:26:26 +0530
From:	Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	<linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/76] ARC: Syscall support (no-legacy-syscall ABI)

On Saturday 19 January 2013 08:39 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> Please, collapse your #36--#40 into that one (and I'd probably fold #17
> here as well, to simplify that reordering).  Sure, it's not a bisection
> hazard, but...

Thanks again for the review Al.

Sure, I can do that - however because those patches have bits in arch/arc/Kconfig,
I'll have to move the Build system patch towards start of series, or simply chop
off Kconfig bits out of those and add them later - what do you prefer ?

My only reason for chunking those up was to capture the intermediate development
of how execve and friends were generalized (and have limited revision history even
in initial upstream version). While I was used to the old code, specially
copy_thread() between 1st and last change seemed to be almost rewritten.  Having
said that, I don't have strong opinion either ways.

Thx,
-Vineet
--
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/