linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog

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: <200706201431.44014.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:31:43 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>
Cc:	eranian@....hp.com, oprofile-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	wcohen@...hat.com, perfmon@...ali.hpl.hp.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, levon@...ementarian.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog

On Wednesday 20 June 2007 12:35:56 Björn Steinbrink wrote:
> The performance counter allocator is tied to the LAPIC NMI watchdog,

That's not true. It's completely independent. It just happens to be in
the same file, but it has no direct functional ties to the watchdog.


> Fix the performance counter allocator by making it independent of the
> LAPIC NMI watchdog. This also fixes a bug in the LAPIC NMI watchdog
> which allocated the wrong performance counter on CPUs with PerfMon
> support.

Combining code movement with functional fixes makes it impossible
to review properly. Don't do that please.

-An
-
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/