linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: Move fs.* to generic lib/lk/

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: <20131122150055.GC11305@ghostprotocols.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:00:55 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Move fs.* to generic lib/lk/

Em Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 02:50:34PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:27:01PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I don't think those other bits should go into this library. rbtree
> > should go into lib/rbtree/, command-line bits into lib/cmdline/, build
> > system helpers into lib/build/, etc.
> >
> > Merging unrelated things into a single library is a user-space disease
> > we need not repeat.
> 
> Well, rbtree is basically rblist.c and the rbtree*.h headers which
> simply wrap the kernel headers.
> 
> cmdline is parse-options.c.
> 
> IOW, that's splitting it into too granulary pieces with 1-2 compilation
> units ber library.

Lets do one at a time, so far we agreed that the ones that involves
parsing procfs/sysfs etc should go in tools/lib/(fs)?kapi, so lets do
that one.
 
> And what if there are interdependencies between the stuff split this
> way? That could become very painful and unnecessary.
 
> So having a simple single library which includes generic stuff needed to
> interface with the kernel is much simpler and sane, IMHO.
 
> And, since we're keeping it internal, we can do the split the other way
> around instead - first do the single generic library and then carve out
> a certain subset of functionality if/when it makes sense.
 
> The same approach we can use for the name - first split and work with it
> and change stuff when the need for it arises.
 
> > I'd also not expose any of this externally but straight link it into
> > the individual utilities - that way it does not matter that it's a
> > nice, topical, fine-grained set of functionality.
> >
> > I don't think we are ready for (nor do we want the overhead of)
> > maintaining a library ABI at this stage.
> >
> > Once things slow down and it's all so robust that we've had at most
> > a handful of commits in tools/lib/ in a full year we can think about
> > exporting it, maybe ...
> 
> Right.

yeah.
--
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/