linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the jc

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: <20180509085920.5fbb32f5@lwn.net>
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 08:59:20 -0600
From:   Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 jc_docs tree

On Wed, 9 May 2018 15:28:24 +0200
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:

> > BTW, it would be nice if the the question "Why was this file removed?" was
> > answered by that jc_docs commit message ...  I actually wonder if this
> > file needs to return (I have no way of knowing).  
> 
> My bad; thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> Mmh... "why" would have been something like "the feature has no Kconfig". ;-)
> 
> I defer to your (community) decision regarding "if this file needs to return"
> (Cc-ing Ingo, who created the file and also suggested its removal); I remain
> available for preparing the patch to restore (and refresh) this file, should
> you agree with this approach.

So I'll confess that I balked on the lack of a changelog, but then decided
to proceed with the patch (and the other removal as well) due to the lack
of the Kconfig option.

Now that I look a little closer, I think the real issue is that the
"features" documentation assumes that there's a Kconfig option for each,
but there isn't in this case.  The lack of a Kconfig option does not,
this time around, imply that the feature has gone away.

I think that I should probably revert this patch in the short term.
Longer-term, it would be good to have an alternative syntax for "variable
set in the arch headers" to describe situations like this.

Make sense?

Thanks,

jon