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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:38:25 +0800 From: "Li Yang-r58472" <LeoLi@...escale.com> To: "Medve Emilian-EMMEDVE1" <Emilian.Medve@...escale.com>, "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: <jgarzik@...ox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org> Subject: RE: [PATCH] [POWERPC] ucc_geth: Eliminate compile warnings > -----Original Message----- > From: Medve Emilian-EMMEDVE1 > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:48 PM > To: David Miller > Cc: jgarzik@...ox.com; Li Yang-r58472; > netdev@...r.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@...abs.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] [POWERPC] ucc_geth: Eliminate compile warnings > > Hello David, > > > > No piece of code in the kernel should live in a vacuum. > > > > In order to improve overall code quality, every piece of > driver code > > should avoid assuming things about pointer sizes and things of this > > nature. > > I'm afraid we might be talking about orthogonal issues here. > I actively agree that all code (not only kernel) should be > written up to the coding/quality standards you mention above, > but I see a difference between fixing a warning and making a > driver portable (to 64-bit PowerPCs, to other platforms, > etc.). If there is a kernel todo list somewhere lets add to > it the task to make the ucc_geth more portable. > > > Then the driver can get enabled into the build on every > platform, and > > therefore nobody will break the build of this driver again since it > > will get hit by "allmodconfig" > > et al. builds even on platforms other than the one it is meant for. > > > > This hack fix is not acceptable, really. > > Are you suggesting we leave those warnings there until > somebody decides to fix all the portability issues of this > driver? My patch is a small and insignificant improvement and > not the revolution you're asking for, but is an small > improvement today (I dislike warnings) vs. an improbable big > one in the future. I'd say we can not use our way of doing things while working with the community. The community has to consider the kernel as a whole and thus has its own virtue. The warning has been there for some time. It stays as an indicator that we have something to do to improve the portability. I will work on a patch to fix this portability issue. - Leo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists