linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Give chance to build under !CONFIG

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: <5e005ed913086d7e641306b89baa29b070e0359b.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 01:44:39 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Marc
 Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Give chance to build under !CONFIG_SMP for
 LoongArch

On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 08:06 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, at 06:26, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > 
> > I remember that you both suggested not introducing NOSMP support for a
> > modern architecture which brings additional complexity. I wonder if
> > you still have the same attitude now. I will merge this series only if
> > you think it is worthy to introduce NOSMP now.
> 
> It's an interesting question, as we have recently discussed two
> opposite ideas and may end up doing both (or possible neither)
> in the future:
> 
> - On x86, there is no real reason to need non-SMP kernels as the
>   memory savings are fairly small, and it tends to break because
>   of lack of users testing it.

FWIW I'm still running the latest Linux kernel on a Athlon 64 3000+
launched in 2004 with !CONFIG_SMP :).

No objection to this paragraph (and other paragraphs) though.

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University