netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: cadence: Add architecture dependencies

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]

Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:23:08 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: cadence: Add architecture dependencies

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:16:04PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 01:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Distro maintainers like Jean are complaining about build times for their
> > kernels if they enable absolutely everything so if they're never likely
> > to see any hardware using something they want to skip it.

> Is there any reasonable solution for this?
> 1. One group is saying use COMPILE_TEST for every driver to have better
> coverage.
> 2. Next group is saying I don't want to build everything for my arch.

> Fixing Kconfig to say !x86 is probably not the right way to go.

> Isn't it enough not to enable absolutely everything?

You're misunderstanding - the discussion here is for the !COMPILE_TEST
case.  Nobody wants to hide things in the COMPILE_TEST case, it's about
what happens when that's disabled for production kernels.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)