linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X86/PCI/ACPI: Rework setup_resource() via functions ACPI resource functions

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: <522A0437.40802@intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:35:03 -0400
From:	Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
To:	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] X86/PCI/ACPI: Rework setup_resource() via functions
 ACPI resource functions

On 09/06/2013 12:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2013 11:36 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
>>> Please make corresponding changes to arch/ia64/pci/pci.c so that these
>>> paths remain as similar as possible.  There's quite a bit of
>>> similarity between this x86 and ia64 code, and it would be nice to
>>> unify them more when possible.
>>>
>>
>> OK. Actually, I have such plan. I will do that if there is no objection on
>> this patchset.
>
> Great, I'm glad to hear that!  I'm not sure whether you mean "after
> this patchset is accepted" or "as part of this patchset if it seems a
> reasonable path."  I vote for the latter, because if we put in the
> parts people care about, i.e., x86, the rest seems to never happen.
> That's not surprising; whose manager will approve extra time to work
> on an arch that's not on their critical path?  But in my opinion,
> doing just x86 is only doing half the job, and we have to do the whole
> thing if we want to keep Linux maintainable in the future.

I mean the later. :).
Yes, Linux maintainable is very important.
My plan is to find all such cases of converting ACPI resource to generic 
resource but not using ACPI resource function and rework them.


>
> Bjorn
>

--
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/