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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:38:25 +0800
From:	"Li Yang-r58472" <>
To:	"Medve Emilian-EMMEDVE1" <>,
	"David Miller" <>
Cc:	<>, <>,
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:; Li Yang-r58472; 
> 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
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists