linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] interconnect changes for 5.5

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:   Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:44:05 +0200
From:   Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] interconnect changes for 5.5

On 8.11.19 г. 12:39 ч., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:42:13PM +0200, Georgi Djakov wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> On 11/7/19 16:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:46:53PM +0200, Georgi Djakov wrote:
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>> This is a pull request with interconnect patches for the 5.5 merge window.
>>>> All patches have been for a while in linux-next without reported issues. The
>>>> details are in the signed tag. Please consider pulling into char-misc-next.
>>>
>>> I don't know about
>>> 0003-interconnect-Disallow-interconnect-core-to-be-built-.patch here.
>>> Shouldn't you just fix up the dependancies of subsystems that rely on
>>> this?  We are moving more and more to kernels that "just work" with
>>> everything as modules, even on arm64 systems.  So forbiding the
>>> interconnect code from being able to be built as a module does not feel
>>> good to me at all.
>>
>> Thank you for commenting on this! The initial idea was to keep everything as
>> modular as possible. The reasons behind this change is that other core
>> frameworks like cpufreq (and possibly others) want to call the interconnect
>> APIs. Some of these frameworks are built-in only and it would be easier to
>> handle dependencies if interconnect core built-in too. Now each user that
>> can be built-in has to specify in Kconfig that it depends on INTERCONNECT ||
>> !INTERCONNECT.
> 
> That's fine, when those subsystems start to use those apis, that
> dependency needs to be added.  Nothing new here, and you forcing it to
> either be "on or off" isn't going to change that.  Let's do it correctly
> please.

Alright! That matches with what we do today. Thanks for the guidance!

BR,
Georgi