linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/18] provide xtime_update() which does not require holding xtime_lock like do

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:	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:36:28 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Torben Hohn <torbenh@....de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, johnstul@...ibm.com,
	hch@...radead.org, yong.zhang0@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] provide xtime_update() which does not require
 holding xtime_lock like do_timer()

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Torben Hohn wrote:

> some arch code failed to lock the xtime_lock.
> and some code looks like its using the xtime_lock to protect
> other stuff.

That's not a good argument for creating xtime_update().

The point is that do_timer() needs to write lock xtime_lock and we
want to avoid the duplicated code all over the place.

The fact that some of the architectures have other code in the
xtime_lock protected region is completely irrelevant for this
change. That needs to be addressed by the arch specific patches.

> +
> +/* xtime_update - updates the timer infrastructure.

Please use proper kernel doc style. Also it does not update the timer
infrastructure, it's the timekeeping update.

The comment should also document, that this code needs to be called
with interrupts disabled.

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/