linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] early_printk: consolidate random copies of identical code

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: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1303072240050.22263@ionos>
Date:	Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:41:06 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] early_printk: consolidate random copies of identical
 code

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:50:23 -0500 Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com> wrote:
> 
> > This brings up a recurring question.  I was tempted to just go make
> > CONFIG_EARLY_PRINTK depend on CONFIG_PRINTK, but lately I've faced
> > pushback when trying to "fix" things like seeing ARM OMAP USB options
> > for an x86 build[1], and GOLDFISH virt drivers being offered even
> > when the end user already said no to GOLDFISH[2].
> > 
> > Do we want to use dependencies to reflect the real world layout of
> > platforms/systems, or do we want to go the minimal dependency
> > approach, where we are building sparc specific drivers on mips just
> > because we can?
> > 
> > I think the former is better from a user specific point of view, as
> > the maze of Kconfig is better as a tree topology with branches that
> > have clear dependencies that exclude them, versus it being a flat
> > monolithic space where anything can select anything.
> > 
> > Arguments I've heard for the latter seem to be developer centric
> > (i.e forcing wider build coverage on the population as a whole, etc)
> 
> For me personally, I really really want good compilation coverage.  It
> drives me bats when I merge a patch but have to jump through a series
> of hoops (such as not having the appropriate cross-compiler!) to be
> able to build the thing.
> 
> otoh, offering useless stuff to non-kernel-developers has downsides
> with no balancing benefit, and we really should optimise things for
> our users because there are so many more of them than there are of us.
> 
> I wish we could do both :(   CONFIG_AKPM?

Sure go ahead, and while at it could you please implement
CONFIG_DO_WHAT_I_MEAN as well ?

Thanks,

	tglx

--
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/