linux-kernel - Re: [tip:timers/urgent] ktime: Get rid of the union

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Jan 2017 14:47:08 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/urgent] ktime: Get rid of the union

2017-01-04 10:39 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:12AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> > > Get rid of the union and just keep ktime_t as simple typedef of type s64.
>> >
>> > All good stuff. One question that remains is why keep the type while
>> > removing the cycles_t type?
>>
>> That would have been a massive surgery which I was not able to pull off on
>> top of the other changes.
>
> And the reason ktime needs be s64 is because 0 is at boot, and we need
> to represent time before boot, right? Might want to stick that in a
> comment somewhere near that typedef, so I don't keep asking this ;-)

Aaah, that confused me as well :-)