linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements

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: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809062233500.3243@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:	Sat, 6 Sep 2008 22:37:59 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
	Garrett Smith <garrett@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > Adding another check after the second get_cycles() makes it reliable:
> 
> My original patch actually had that, and Ingo added it to the -tip tree 
> too (I think), so that should be the one we're discussing anyway. I just 
> didn't think it would ever trigger in practice, which is why I removed it. 
> Mea culpa.

My bad. Did not test that against -tip, just applied it from mail :)

Just checked. The -tip version still has the expect-- in the for()
which might lead to stupid results depending on the gcc madness level.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/