linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 Resend 1/5] tick-common: fix wrong check in tick_check

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

Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:42:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arvind.Chauhan@....com, linaro-networking@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 Resend 1/5] tick-common: fix wrong check in
 tick_check_replacement()

B1;3202;0c

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:

> tick_check_replacement() returns if a replacement of clock_event_device is
> possible or not. It does this as the first check:
> 
> 	if (tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id()))
> 		return false;
> 
> This looks wrong as we are returning false when tick_check_percpu() returned
> true. Probably Thomas forgot '!' here in his commit: 03e13cf5e ?

Come on. You can do better changelogs.

"This looks wrong" is definitely not a good description of the
problem.

Either you know WHY it is wrong, then you say so. If not, then you can
send an RFC.

I fixed the changelog up this time.
 
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/