linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early

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:	Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:04:34 +0000
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"msalter@...hat.com" <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
	Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] generic early_ioremap support

On 25 Feb 2014, at 19:42, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 02/25/2014 10:45 AM, Mark Salter wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:30 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> I'd suggest spitting the core part out from the arch-specific parts. That
>>> way, the core part can merged independently and architectures can move over
>>> as they see fit. It also signals (at least to me) that, "hey, I should
>>> probably review this" whilst my current stance is "there's a whole load of
>>> stuff under mm/ that needs to be acked first".
>>> 
>>> If you put the whole thing into next, you just run the risk of conflicts
>>> with all the arch trees.
>> 
>> I've been thinking of breaking out the common bits and x86 bits and just
>> going with that for now. There's no point in just doing the common bits
>> because it won't get tested without at least one architecture using it.
>> 
> 
> If you think it makes sense we could take the common bits + x86 and put
> them through the -tip tree.  

I’m ok with the arm64 patches to go through -tip with my ack on all
patches:

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>

> The other option would be to put the whole
> thread in linux-next with Acks.
> 
> As far as x86 is concerned it looks like it is mostly just code
> movement, so I'm happy giving my:
> 
> Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks. Either way works for me.

I think the series still need an ack from rmk at least on the arm patch
(4/6).

Catalin--
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/