linux-kernel - Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall

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:	Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:27:36 +0100
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...esys.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 13:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  
> > -core_initcall(cpufreq_tsc);
> > +/*
> > + * init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list() should execute first,
> > + * which is a core_initcall, so mark this one core_initcall_sync:
> > + */
> > +core_initcall_sync(cpufreq_tsc);
> 
> Would prefer that we not use the _sync levels.  They're there as a
> synchronisation for MULTITHREAD_PROBE and might disappear at any time.

Works also fine with postcore_init, but I'm more concerned about the
delayed notification (after the actual change) which is introduced by
this srcu change.

	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/