Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752333Ab2KFOzs (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:55:48 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:36321 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750795Ab2KFOzr (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:55:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1352156701-4038-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <1352156701-4038-104-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 06:55:46 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nmqXUySRxUt0hGVgCAmDP5Iwd4o Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 103/104] mm: remove depends on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL From: Kees Cook To: David Rientjes Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Jan Beulich , Mel Gorman , Seth Jennings Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2399 Lines: 62 On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:57 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote: > >> >>> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig >> >>> index a3f8ddd..679945e 100644 >> >>> --- a/mm/Kconfig >> >>> +++ b/mm/Kconfig >> >>> @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ >> >>> config SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL >> >>> def_bool y >> >>> - depends on EXPERIMENTAL || ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL >> >>> >> >>> choice >> >>> prompt "Memory model" >> >> >> >> I thought you agreed to only drop EXPERIMENTAL here in >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135103415901094 and leave >> >> ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL, which you've orphaned with the above, for phase >> >> two of your effort? >> > >> > Ah! Yes, thanks. I'll restore that. >> >> Wait, no. This is an "OR". ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL has no affect on >> SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL if EXPERIMENTAL is always considered on. My >> proposal was to deal with ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL separately. Did I >> misunderstand something? >> > > We're rehashing the same discussion as before? I left the earlier thread > with the understanding that this would become > > depends on ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL > > and then fix ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL when people complain for > configurations that actually allow you to configure the memory model. It > never should have been short-circuited by EXPERIMENTAL in the first place, > but enabling it to be configurable for everybody and orphaning > ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL doesn't sound appropriate. I think we should do > some due diligence in actually making ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL work so > people are presented with a config that will work on their machines. > > (This is independent of the rest of the series, we can certainly remove > EXPERIMENTAL regardless of this decision, I simply think we should be > leaving ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL to prevent users with > CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=n from being presented with a new ability to change > their memory model that actually doesn't work for them.) Okay, that's cool. I misunderstood what you'd wanted here. I'll leave ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL in place. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/