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:   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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists