linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xen: features and fixes for 4.8-rc0

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFyYXv6VkO4=7PjsT0H1dvaa6Byftkc=2VpHg9GN7RbpqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:42:18 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Vrabel <dvrabel@...tab.net>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xen: features and fixes for 4.8-rc0

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:45 AM, David Vrabel <dvrabel@...tab.net> wrote:
>
> Shannon Zhao (16):
>       Xen: ACPI: Hide UART used by Xen

So this caused a trivial conflict. No biggie, it wasn't bad and the
patch was acked by Rafael. However, looking at it made me somewhat
unhappy.

Should the device entry in ACPI really be hidden unconditionally? In
particular, if we are *not* running under virtualization, it sounds
wrong to hide it.

Comments? Am I missing something?

               Linus