linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: remove wrong setting about CONSTANT

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: <20080226094742.GM9857@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:47:42 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: remove wrong setting about CONSTANT_TSC for
	intel cpu


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>  which is the same. set_cpu_cap() is indeed the cleaner form to do this
>>>  so your patch is correct as a cleanup.
>> set_cpu_cap is right
>> ==
>> set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, &c->x86_capability); ===> is wrong
>> should be
>> set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability);
>>
>> x86_capability is a array ...
>
> For an array, the & is optional and has no effect.
>
> So they mean the same thing.

yeah. It's unnecessary entropy nevertheless and i've cleaned it all up 
in x86.git.

	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/