linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 0/4] perf/urgent fixes

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:	Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:12:01 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...aro.org>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 0/4] perf/urgent fixes


* Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:

> SNIP
> 
> > 
> > Okay, so the problem is that we don't have a simple binary-state 
> > feature in this case, but three possible states: 'libunwind', or 
> > 'libdw-dwarf-unwind', or 'OFF', right?
> > 
> > If so then the solution would be to replace those 3 last lines with 
> > just this line:
> > 
> >      ...        DWARF unwind library: [ libunwind ]
> > 
> > Where 'libunwind' is printed in green (like the 'on' lines are 
> > printed). If there's no suitable library available then output:
> > 
> >      ...        DWARF unwind library: [ OFF ]
> > 
> > Because the user looking at the output is really only interested in 
> > 'is an unwind library available', and maybe in 'which one'.
> > 
> > Is there preference between library choices? I.e. is 'libunwind' 
> > preferred over 'libdw-dwarf-unwind', or the other way around? If yes 
> > then if we pick an inferior library we could print it in yellow color 
> > - and only use green if it's the 'best' choice.
> > 
> > That way the color codes also still keep working: red means problem, 
> > green means OK, yellow something inbetween.
> 
> sounds good.. TODO list updated ;-)
> 
> > 
> > But in any case we should try to keep the 'one feature, one line' 
> > fundamental output concept.
> > 
> > ( Under V=1 we can output whatever details might be useful to
> >   developers, there's no restriction on what to output there. )
> 
> thats what we put VF for.. maybe we should for verbose
> features code detection output for V=1 as well

Yeah, I think it's only rarely needed, so might make sense to merge it 
into V=1.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/