linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070131171042.GB4468@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:10:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, johnstul@...ibm.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority

* Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 12:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > -module_init(init_acpi_pm_clocksource);
> > > +/*
> > > + * This clocksource is removed from the clocksource_initcall
> > > + * macro since it's mandatory for it to be in fs_initcall as the
> > > + * highest initcall level, or else it doesn't work properly with
> > > + * it's PCI fix ups.
> > > + */
> > > +fs_initcall(init_acpi_pm_clocksource);
> > 
> > ugh - this bit looks quite interesting.
> > 
> > what's the purpose of this patch? Switching to high-res timers 
> > should be done late in the bootup - in case there's a problem it's 
> > more debuggable, etc.
> 
> The timekeeping code, and hrt/dynamic tick both wait till after boot 
> up to switch to high res mode ..

again, let me repeat the question: what's the purpose of this (whole!) 
patch. Not just of this chunk - the whole patch. You change around 
initcall levels - why? It makes no sense to me. The explanation in the 
patch header makes no sense to me.

Please if possible try to build clear arguments: first outlining "this 
is how it worked before: <X>", then outlining "this is how it will work 
after my change: <Y>", and then maybe a small blurb about "Y is better 
than X, because: <Z>". That X, Y, Z analysis is what is needed to accept 
a patch.

> The specific code block you commented on above was added cause acpi_pm 
> has special pci fixups that don't function properly earlier in boot 
> up. So it can't be arbitrarily raised to order in the initcall 
> sequence ..

i think you misunderstood my comment. In the chunk above you used 
fs_initcall() initcall instead of clocksource_initcall(). (Which is 
funny even ignoring the bad hack that clocksource_initcall is defined to 
fs_initcall.)

	Ingo
-
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/