linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] Update kernel math-emu code from current glibc soft-fp

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, 1 Jul 2015 09:34:11 +0200
From:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:	Joseph Myers <joseph@...esourcery.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S.Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Update kernel math-emu code from current glibc soft-fp

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:48 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>
>> > Is there some way you can imagine of splitting this up into smaller chunks, so
>> > that different arches can merge the pieces separately?
>>
>> Well, it could be split as:
>>
>> 1. Rename include/math-emu to math-emu-old and update architectures for
>> the renaming (mechanically).
>>
>> 2. Add new include/math-emu.
>>
>> 3,4,5,6,7. Move each architecture from math-emu-old to math-emu.
>>
>> 8. Remove math-emu-old.
>>
>> You still have patch 1 affecting all five architectures, but with the
>> per-architecture changes being much simpler.
>
> OK. That's obviously a bit more churn, but I think it's probably the best
> approach. Unless someone else has a better idea?

Does it make that much of a difference?

You said:
| However in it's current form it's not easily mergeable, because it
touches five
| architectures and has the potential to cause breakage on all of them.

Patch 1 still touches five architectures.
Patches 3-7 still have the potential to break an architecture, but only one of
them at a time.

>From a bisectability point of view there's no change.
Except that patch 1 (and 8) may break something, too ;-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
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/