linux-kernel - Re: RISC-V Linux Port v9

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: <CAK8P3a1ROLHHY9HE0LtPywhTMqBaHjp8kd4ZVBr3iWTyveBh9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2017 23:08:02 -0700
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        patches@...ups.riscv.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, albert@...ive.com,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RISC-V Linux Port v9

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com> wrote:
> As per suggestions on our v8 patch set, I've split the core architecture code
> out from our drivers and would like to submit this patch set to be included
> into linux-next, with the goal being to be merged in during the next merge
> window.  This patch set is based on 4.14-rc2, but if it's better to have it
> based on something else then I can change it around.

-rc2 is good, just don't rebase it any more. I'd suggest that at the point this
becomes part of linux-next, you stop modifying the patches further and
move to adding any additional changes as patches on top.

>  * I cleaned up the defconfigs -- there's actually now just one, and it's
>    empty.  For now I think we're OK with what the kernel sets as defaults, but
>    I anticipate we'll begin to expand this as people start to use the port
>    more.

The kernel defaults are not really as sensible as one would hope. Maybe
go through your previous defconfig once more and pick up the items that
made sense.

         Arnd