linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] drm for 6.15-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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250401194649.GE325917@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 16:46:49 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] drm for 6.15-rc1

On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:42:35PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2025, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> > So, I'd suggest a better way to run this is first build the kernel,
> > then mine the gcc -MD output (ie stored in the .XX.cmd files) to
> > generate a list of headers that are actually part of the build, then
> > only test those. That eliminates all the kconfig problems. Opt out any
> > special headers that really have a good reason not to be stand alone.
> 
> I think we'd want the drm headers pass the checks independent of configs
> (apart from CONFIG_DRM). One size doesn't fit all.

Why? That demand is just making it impossible to make shared
infrastructure, and I don't think DRM should go off and build its own
stuff just for DRM in a way that nobody else can use it.

If you really, really, care then you can have your makefile codegen an
"allheaders.c" that #includes drm/*.h and compile that.

Jason