linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] Kbuild updates for v5.6-rc1

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK7LNARA9GmCE3fr4JiHKNBMnQ_D0yik2UHtPHXq621J8_satQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 21:03:36 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] Kbuild updates for v5.6-rc1

Hi Linus,


On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:07 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020, 01:16 Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Generally, initramfs is passed from a boot-loader,
>> but some architectures embed initramfs into vmlinux
>> (perhaps due to poor boot-loader support??)
>
>
> You didn't answer my real question.
>
> Why do we give the user the choice, when it doesn't matter, and the user doesn't care?

I do not want that commit simply reverted.

Please let me clarify what you want to see:

[1] Remove this choice completely ?
    The build system will choose the best one.
    For example, CONFIG_RD_XZ  is enabled,
    '.xz' is _always_ preferred choice over '.gz'


[2] Hide this choice unless INITRAMFS_SOURCE!=""

    As Geert mentioned, we still could save
    a little more data size, but we assume
    people would not care about hundreds bytes.


Which one ?


[2] was the previous behavior.
I think you are complaining
because you noticed a new prompt showed up.


> The argument for the commit was "it's simpler".
>
> But that is simply not *true*.
>
> It's simpler only technically. It's more complexity for the only party that matters: the user.
>
> So I'm likely going to just revert that commit as incorrect and misleading. It's not simpler at all. It's more complex.
>
> The configuration code should care about the user interface more than it seems to do. Some complexity in order to make for less pointless questions is food m good.
>
>        Linus



--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada