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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <1170290084.29240.246.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:34:43 +0100
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:15 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > clocksource_initcall is simply superfluid. 
>
> My position has always been that clocksources should be registered as
> early as possible .. The fs_initcall() usage is a compromise stemming
> from early resistance that John, and you gave to moving the clocks up in
> the initcall sequence.

No. I never objected against the registering of clocks at any given
time. Why would I have otherwise accepted ARM patches, which register
their clocksources in the early timer init ?

The only concern I had and still have is when we decide to use something
else than the "safe" heaven of jiffies.

	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/