| 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: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:03:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com> cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert commit e8aa4667baf74dfd85fbaab86861465acb811085 On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > Is the HPET on these systems not working at all so the force enable > > code is useless ? > > The current quirk is incomplete. Some more chipset fiddling has to be > done to enable HPET interrupts. I have a patch that would do this. > And from my tests it seems to work faultlessly. > > But the official statement is that HPET is not supported on SB4XX. > > Thus there are 2 alternatives: > (1) Remove the current (incomplete) quirk. > (2) Extent the quirk. > But whoever forces HPET would use it on his own risk. > > I decided to do (1) because it's safest. > Other opinions? Yup, I prefer (2). It might help users. It still needs hpet=force on the kernel command line. So it's a documented "you forced it" feature with no guarantees. I don't expect that the systems will explode, burn out or fall into pieces when hpet is enabled. That would be a reason to go for (1) :) Thanks, tglx -- 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