linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: add x86 support for rtc-efi

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: <4A1AC741.3060600@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 May 2009 09:28:49 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
To:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Brian Maly <bmaly@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"dannf@...com" <dannf@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: add x86 support for rtc-efi

Huang, Ying wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 02:21 +0800, Anvin, H Peter wrote:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Brian Maly <bmaly@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hm, it would be nice to first unify the relevant bits of 
>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/time_{32|64}.c into arch/x86/kernel/time.c, and 
>>>>> then we can apply such patches without duplicative effects.
>>>> Ingo,
>>>>
>>>> Are you OK with consolidating this into arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c as 
>>>> Huang Ying had suggested? This seems like the most logical place 
>>>> for the rtc-efi init to happen, but your suggestion to consolidate 
>>>> this into arch/x86/kernel.time.c may have advantages that I am not 
>>>> aware of.  Anyway, I would appreciate any insight/opinions on this 
>>>> if you have any.  Thanks.
>>> Yes, that indeed sounds like an even better place for it.
>>>
>> Furthermore, the EFI RTC code probably should be in its own file.
>>
>> In fact, arch/x86/kernel really could use more subdirectories; at least 
>> the EFI and UV-specific code should be be moved out.
> 
> Or, do you think it is appropriate to re-organize EFI related code into
> a sub-architecture?
> 

No, we're been trying to get rid of subarchitectures in the x86 kernel. 
  The reason is that the notion of subarchitectures matches reality in 
x86-land poorly.  Most variants of x86 share considerable code: UV has 
EFI, PC has EFI or BIOS, Voyager has BIOS and a standard RTC, and so on.

	-hpa

--
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/