linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] non-string based tsc unstable reasons

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: <20070525210504.GD24083@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 23:05:04 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] non-string based tsc unstable reasons

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 12:32:10PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Just passing a string to mark_tsc_unstable() doesn't allow real code to change
> based on the reason for the instablility. I changed mark_tsc_unstable()
> to accept a string and a flag which denotes a general reason why the tsc
> is unstable, and can be evaluated in code.
> 

I still think that's the wrong way to do this. If there is any 
special action that should be done on particular unstable events
it should call a separate function or an addon function.
First putting it all together and then try to distingush it again
doesn't seem nice.

-Andi
-
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/