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: <20180509111136.127756a8@lwn.net>
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 11:11:36 -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>, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 jc_docs tree

On Wed, 9 May 2018 18:53:28 +0200
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:

> > 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.  
> 
> Both matters were discussed during v1:
> 
>   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1522774551-9503-1-git-send-email-andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com
> 
> ... (and the glory details are documented in features-refresh.sh ;-) ).

So I'll admit to being confused, since I don't see discussion of the
actual topic at hand.

> As I suggested above, simply reverting this patch will leave this file,
> (and only this file!) out-of-date (and won't resolve the conflict with
> Laurent's patch ...).

Reverting this patch retains the updates from earlier in the series, and
does indeed make the conflict go away, so I'm still confused.  What am I
missing?

Thanks,

jon