linux-kernel - Re: [RFC part1 PATCH 0/7] Make ACPI core running on ARM64

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: <20131206135825.GG29268@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:58:25 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	patches@...aro.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC part1 PATCH 0/7] Make ACPI core running on ARM64

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:25:02PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> However, as I mentioned before I am much more worried about the parts that
> are not done (or not posted) yet and that will be required to actually
> have working support for a real server system. Until we know more about
> where this is heading, I think we should not merge any of the ARM specific
> parts of your patches. Any patches that are reasonable cleanups and bug
> fixes for the ACPI subsystem should of course get merged once they are
> reviewed.

OTOH if it's well encapsulated, is going to be required for any kind of
ACPI use and gets to the point where people are OK with it by itself
then I'm not sure what we'd gain by keeping it out of tree - it'd make
the real system patch sets bigger and harder to review.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)