linux-kernel - Re: + clocksource-increase-initcall-priority.patch added to -mm tree

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]

Message-Id: <1160348036.5686.155.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:53:56 +0200
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, johnstul@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	zippel@...ux-m68k.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + clocksource-increase-initcall-priority.patch added to -mm
	tree

On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 15:13 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 23:38 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I don't see that behaviour on my machines and nobody complains about
> > that. I don't care about stale comments. Point me to a bug report
> > instead of your perception of what's optimal and not.
> 
> Let both do this. Lets discuss empirical behavior. Otherwise we aren't
> making any progress. 

Go, grep the LKML archives and let those who had problems test your
modifications. Come back when they confirm that it does not change
anything.

You want to change behaviour of the current code, so it's your job to
verify that it does not break anything.

I have been there and done that with the ARM interrupt code
http://www.linutronix.de/index.php?page=testing

I know what I'm talking about.

	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/