linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: kbuild: drop CONFIG_RISCV_ISA

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:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:59:05 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Charles Papon <charles.papon.90@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: kbuild: drop CONFIG_RISCV_ISA_C

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:18:22AM +0200, Charles Papon wrote:
> > Because it it the unix platform baseline as stated in the patch.
> I know that, but i'm looking for arguments why RVC could't be kept as
> an option, especialy it is only an optimisation option without
> behavioral/code changes.
> 
> That baseline make sense for heavy linux distributions, where you
> expect everybody to compile with a baseline set of ISA extentions, to
> make binary exchanges easier.
> But for smaller systems, i do not see advantages having RVC forced.

I don't fully agree with the benefits, but then again how little
impact using the C extension has on the kernel build I'm now convinced
that keeping it should be ok.