linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] powerpc: convert config files to generic cmdline

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

Message-ID: <20210406162942.GR2469518@zorba>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:29:42 -0700
From:   Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel@...pelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        xe-linux-external@...co.com, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] powerpc: convert config files to generic cmdline

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 03:08:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:31 PM Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 03:13:04PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:33 PM Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:29:44PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 2:00 PM Daniel Walker <danielwa@...co.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 01:03:55PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok, so you agree we don't need to provide two CMDLINE, one to be appended and one to be prepended.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's only provide once CMDLINE as of today, and ask the user to select
> > > > > > > whether he wants it appended or prepended or replacee. Then no need to
> > > > > > > change all existing config to rename CONFIG_CMDLINE into either of the new
> > > > > > > ones.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's the main difference between my series and Daniel's series. So I'll
> > > > > > > finish taking Will's comment into account and we'll send out a v3 soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't solve the needs of Cisco, I've stated many times your changes have
> > > > > > little value. Please stop submitting them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you please outline what those needs are which aren't met?
> > > >
> > > > append AND prepend at the same time on all architectures. Christophe doesn't
> > > > understand the need, and hence tries to minimize the feature set which is
> > > > incompatible with Cisco needs and all the other out of tree users.
> > >
> > > Okay, but that's never been a feature in upstream. For upstream, we
> > > refactor first and add features 2nd. In this case, the difference is
> > > largely the kconfig and it would be better to not change the options
> > > twice, but that's not a blocker for taking the refactoring. You won't
> > > find a maintainer that's going to take adding a feature over cleanups
> > > and unification.
> >
> > It kind of is a feature in upstream, it's a matter of opinion. Some platform
> > used append and some use prepend, and it's likely because the maintainers needed
> > one or the other for development.
> 
> Which arch/platform upstream does both prepend and append at the same time?
 
None do it at the same time, however x86 and mips have switched between the two. 

> > I'm not sure why you think I can't add the features in one go. It would be
> > horrid to take Christophe's changes, then have to do basically all the same work
> > a second time which is what Christophe's changes would force me to do.
> 
> I didn't say it couldn't be done. In fact, I said it would be better
> all at once: "it would be better to not change the options twice"
> 
> But both of you ignoring comments and continuing to post competing
> series is not going to get us there. TBC, I think Christophe's series
> is much closer to being in shape to merge upstream.
 
I'm not the one ignoring comments .. I've taken a number of comments from
Christophe, but he still submits his own series..

Christophe series doesn't look good to me.. I suspect you like it cause it
deletes lines from of.

> > Say for example I implement this change only on one architecture. In that case
> > the maintainer would be accepting a feature enhancement , but there would be no
> > stopping it. I shouldn't have to go two strokes on one architecture, but each
> > change I'm making is essentially a single architecture. They can go in all
> > together or one at a time.
> 
> Features do get implemented all the time on one arch. And then maybe a
> 2nd and 3rd. At some point we decide no more copying, it needs to be
> common and refactored. We're at that point for cmdline handling IMO.

I don't think it can be done with one series all at once ..

Daniel