Re: Patch "x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()" has been added to the 4.19-stable tree

Re: Patch "x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()" has been added to the 4.19-stable tree

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:02 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:47:07AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 6:36 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > >
> > >     x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()
> > >
> > > to the 4.19-stable tree which can be found at:
> > >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> >
> > Why?  ISTM the only possible effect is to break out-of-tree modules.
> > I have no objection to breaking such modules if we need to, but, in
> > this case, I don't see the benefit.
>
> The "benefit" is that people keep complaining that newer kernels do not
> have this api for some reason and that it is a "regression", which
> completely does not understand how the kernel handles internal apis.

I suppose that's a reasonable point.  But maybe we should actually
give these modules a credible alternative first?  I just send a patch.

Re: Patch "x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()" has been added to the 4.19-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 07:42:21AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:02 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:47:07AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 6:36 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > > >
> > > >     x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()
> > > >
> > > > to the 4.19-stable tree which can be found at:
> > > >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> > >
> > > Why?  ISTM the only possible effect is to break out-of-tree modules.
> > > I have no objection to breaking such modules if we need to, but, in
> > > this case, I don't see the benefit.
> >
> > The "benefit" is that people keep complaining that newer kernels do not
> > have this api for some reason and that it is a "regression", which
> > completely does not understand how the kernel handles internal apis.
> 
> I suppose that's a reasonable point.  But maybe we should actually
> give these modules a credible alternative first?  I just send a patch.

That's your call, it's your code :)

thanks,

greg k-h