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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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