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]

Date:	Sun, 8 Dec 2013 03:44:56 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	patches@...aro.org, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	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>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	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 Friday 06 December 2013, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.

I'd agree as soon as someone can convince me that we actually want ACPI
support in the kernel for ARM64 servers. As far as I'm concerned it's quite
possible that the people who have worked on this for the past couple of
years behind closed doors know what they are doing and it will all be
good, but it's also possible that it turns into a huge trainwreck once
we see multiple implementations that have fundamentally incompatible
requirements regarding what they want from ACPI and we end up not doing
it at all. I just don't have enough information at this point to know which
of the two is true and I'd like to ensure that accepting the patches
that meet your criteria above would not be seen as an endorsement to do
crazy stuff later.

	Arnd
--
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/