linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: More precise time stamps for nested writes

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:	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:04:15 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	"Suresh E. Warrier" <warrier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ring-buffer: More precise time stamps for nested writes

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:38:43 -0500
"Suresh E. Warrier" <warrier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > But for now, what can be done is to have
> > a flag that is set that will implement this or not. Using
> > static_branch() to implement it such that when its off it has no effect.
> > 
> 
> Are you recommending that for now I use a static_branch() instead
> of a CONFIG option to fix this? I could do that but the resulting 
> code will either be messier to read (with several if condition checks)
> or will require some duplication of code. My assumption is that the
> new CONFIG option when disabled should have negligible impact since
> the compiler inlines the functions.

It can be done cleanly if you encapsulate it properly.

Too bad I'm not going on any trips soon. This is a project I would work
on on the plane.

-- Steve
--
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/