linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete CLOCK_TICK

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802292315480.2723@scrub.home>
Date:	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:27:01 +0100 (CET)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	johnstul@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove obsolete CLOCK_TICK_ADJUST

Hi,

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> The changelog provides no reason for the revert of those two patches.
> 
> Look at it from the point of view of a person who hasn't been following the
> discussion (whose initials might be LT).  That person might get puzzled and
> upset, no?

I'm puzzled at how to explain this...
The whole details have been explained over and over during the discussion.
The simple answer is that CLOCK_TICK_ADJUST has been causing extra clock 
drift, John's attempt didn't fix the real cause.
My patch doesn't just revert the patches, it also includes the _real_ fix, 
so why would the real fix require more justification? That person also 
didn't get puzzled why two patches claiming to fix the same problem got 
merged...

bye, Roman
--
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/