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  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, 23 Feb 2014 13:55:52 -0800
From:	Josh Triplett <>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Andi Kleen <>,
	Feng Tang <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Jacob Shin <>,
	Jan Beulich <>,
	Jussi Kivilinna <>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
	Paul Gortmaker <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
	Rob Landley <>,
	Seiji Aguchi <>,
	Stephane Eranian <>,
	Suravee Suthikulpanit <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: Support compiling out human-friendly
 processor feature names

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 01:44:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/23/2014 01:32 PM, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > 
> > Because, in order to un-break the build, v3 wraps an ifdef around that
> > dependency, to prevent building cpustr.h.  Otherwise, the rule for
> > cpustr.h tries and fails to build mkcpustr.
> > 
> Why did it fail to build mkcpustr?  It would seem that mkcpustr is or at
> least ought to be completely agnostic to any of these options.
> The extra build machinery here seems completely pointless.
> I agree that the #ifdef isn't a big deal, but all this extra machinery
> really indicates something is odd.
> Oh, and of course, looking at the v2 patchset, the problem is the ifdef
> around the mkcapflags shell script which really shouldn't be necessary.
>  We may have to add a rule to force capflags.c to be built even if
> capflags.o is not requested, but that is fine.
> That will cut down on the Makefile hacks considerably, and will avoid
> this problem completely.

Why have the build system waste time building several things that won't
be used?  It seems like the Makefiles are exactly where we *should* have
the ifdef machinery, rather than in source.  I'd happily add another
ifdef in the Makefile rule that builds cpustr.h, to generate a stub
cpustr.h header, and then remove one more ifdef in the source.

- Josh Triplett
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists