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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 16:20:08 +1000 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/powernv: remove dead NPU DMA code On 20/06/2019 16:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Linus, > > this goes back to the discussion at last years kernel summit, where > we had the discussion on removing code never used by any in-kernel > user an no prospects of one. The IBM folks are unfortunately still > dragging their feet on the powerpc side. Can we revise this discussion? > > The use case here is a IBM specific bus for which they only have an > out of tree driver that their partner doesn't want to submit for mainline, > but keep insisting on keeping the code around (which is also built > uncondŃ–tionally for the platform). I personally keep insisting on correct commit logs, i.e. not calling working code dead and providing actual reasons for the change. Thanks, > > I hope we had settled that argument back then, but it seems like Big > Blue insists they are special. > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:45:42AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> >> >> On 19/06/2019 17:28, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:34:54AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 23/05/2019 17:49, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>> None of these routines were ever used since they were added to the >>>>> kernel. >>>> >>>> >>>> It is still being used exactly in the way as it was explained before in >>>> previous respins. Thanks. >>> >>> Please point to the in-kernel user, because that is the only relevant >>> one. This is not just my opinion but we had a clear discussion on that >>> at least years kernel summit. >> >> >> There is no in-kernel user which still does not mean that the code is >> dead. If it is irrelevant - put this to the commit log instead of saying >> it is dead; also if there was a clear outcome from that discussion, then >> please point me to that, I do not get to attend these discussions. Thanks, -- Alexey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists