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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:27:35 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: dada1@...mosbay.com Cc: akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce jiffies_32 and related compare functions From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:09:23 +0100 > We definitly *like* being able to use bigger timeouts on 64bits platforms. > > Not that they are mandatory since the same application should run fine on > 32bits kernel. But as the standard type for 'tick timestamps' is 'unsigned > long', a change would be invasive. > > Maybe some applications are now relying on being able to > sleep()/select()/poll() for periods > 30 days and only run on 64 > bits kernels. I think one possible target would be struct timer, at least in theory. There is also a line of reasoning that says that on 64-bit platforms we have some flexibility to set HZ very large, if we wanted to at some point, and going to 32-bit jiffies storage for some things may eliminate that kind of flexibility. Just some food for thought... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists