linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [1/4] x86: MCE: Make polling timer interval per CPU

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: <49DC8AE5.8010005@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:30:45 +0900
From:	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/4] x86: MCE: Make polling timer interval per CPU

Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> +	if (!*n)
>>> +		*n = check_interval * HZ;
>>> +	if (!*n)
>>>  		return;
> 
> The !*n will return for check_interval == 0 because 0*HZ is still 0 so it should be 
> equivalent. Did I miss something?

At First, *n is 0 on boot.
And then soon it will be initialized to non-zero (check_interval * HZ)
by the first if-statement.

After that if check_interval is changed via sysfs while *n is non-zero,
which if-statement runs?


Thanks,
H.Seto
--
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/