linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] CMDLINE: x86: convert to generic builtin command line

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: <1759447244.24579.14.camel@chimera>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 16:20:44 -0700
From: Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel@...pelevich.san-francisco.ca.us>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@...co.com>, Will Deacon
 <will@...nel.org>, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Rob
 Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Pratyush Brahma <quic_pbrahma@...cinc.com>, Tomas Mudrunka
 <tomas.mudrunka@...il.com>, Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>,
 "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-mips@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org"
 <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo
 Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 
 "xe-linux-external(mailer list)" <xe-linux-external@...co.com>, Ruslan
 Ruslichenko <rruslich@...co.com>,  Ruslan Bilovol
 <ruslan.bilovol@...il.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] CMDLINE: x86: convert to generic builtin command
 line

On Thu, 2025-10-02 at 16:10 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> How is the approach to "keep it atomic" working out so far? ;)
> 
> The kernel isn't exactly developed in secret. It's also not hard at all
> to, say, once a week to peek at linux-next and do a lore search (or use
> lei) if anyone is desperately worried about the ~50 lines per
> architecture going out of sync.

With all due respect, the lack of action on this patchset is not at all
due to its scope, but purely due to the throwing-spaghetti-at-the-wall
approach to code review that you yourself just got done pointing out.
Addressing the latter problem would thereby also address the former.