linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS

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: <1185288402.14697.332.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:46:42 +0100
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LinuxPPS - definitive version

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 16:20 +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> The problem is that we can have several PPS sources into a system and
> all these sources will arise their IRQ line (quasi)simultaneously and
> I don't wish a CPU may delay one of these IRQ handler due a spinlock
> into the pps_event().
> 
> That's why I'm trying to avoid any lock into pps_event().

The spinlock really wouldn't be held for long. It really shouldn't be a
problem, and it shouldn't hold up your timings at all. And presumably
you'd have a _different_ spinlock for each source, so they wouldn't
stomp on each other at all.

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/