linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/raid6: correctly check for assembler capabilities

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:	Wed, 4 Feb 2015 08:09:07 +1100
From:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, james.t.kukunas@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/raid6: correctly check for assembler capabilities

On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 22:03:35 +0100 Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 07:50 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > Actually the prefix of this macro is "CONFIG_AS_", not "CONFIG_" :-)
> > CONFIG_AS_ is reserved for assembly magic, and is never used by the the
> > kconfig system.
> > 
> > (Well..... I might have made bits of that up, but "git grep 'config AS_'"
> > doesn't find anything).
> 
> That's correct, there are no Kconfig symbols starting with AS_. But
> still, I would like to hear whether there's a reasonable chance I might
> convince other people to adopt my peeve.
> 
> The thinking behind that peeve is, basically, that where people
> encounter a CONFIG_* macro they should only have to check the .config
> file to see how that macro was evaluated in the build that was used.
> 

Personally, I don't care.

But I find that developers in general are more responsive to code than to
peeves.

So if you post a patch which makes the change that you want, then you are
more likely to get a useful response than if you just post a peeve.
It may not be the response you want of course....

NeilBrown

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped