| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 22:30:35 +0200 From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>, stefan.hengelein@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkkconfigsymbols.py: add option -i to ignore files Greg KH schreef op vr 01-05-2015 om 21:45 [+0200]: > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 09:31:36PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > Patch hijack: it's been my view for some time now that almost all > > defconfigs are outdated in one way or another. And they are outdated > > because they are not, as far as I can tell, updated regularly. So I > > wonder whether there are any guidelines for defconfigs. What is their > > purpose? What exactly can one expect when using a defconfig? > > When ever I bring this up, someone says, "but we need it to define how > to select the options for my arch / board!" How real this is is really > unknown to me but the arches other than x86 seem to insist that they are > relevant. Perhaps I should, just for fun, rebuild v4.1-rc1 using a x86 defconfig and see what happens. Note that I'm typing this on v4.1-rc1 using an x86 .config based on what Fedora ships for 21 (which is, on its turn, based on 3.19.5). Paul Bolle -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists