linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2

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: <1249018430.6046.73.camel@desktop>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:33:50 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2

On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 13:56 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 11:08 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 10:16 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > > Clocksources as modules was one of the initial design goals I had way
> > > back. The benefit being that an older distro kernel could be made to
> > > support newer stranger hardware via a clocksource driver. While the
> > > hardware vendors have for the most part consolidated on HPET/ACPI PM
> > > which has mostly avoided the need, I still think its worth preserving.
> > 
> > If the PIT case is a real use case for unregister than we can keep it
> > around. If not, then that path just becomes unused and all unused code
> > is open for removal from my perspective.
> > 
> > If the case you describe above is a good one, then someone eventually
> > will add back the unregister path. Which should come with a good reason
> > and with an actual user of the code..
> 
> The case I describe above is one where the user of the code doesn't
> necessarily have the ability to add back the unregister path. 

I'm not sure I understand your example.. Your saying a situation where
the kernel can't modified and reloaded, and the hardware clocks aren't
fully implemented in code yet?

> Old distro kernels can be difficult to make changes to when new hardware
> is later released, so being able to just backport a module, compile and
> load it to get a unexpectedly strange new bit of hardware to work with
> an older distro kernel seems valuable enough to keep the code around to
> me.

You can just as easily back port the code as a built in, and reload the
kernel right? Why would it need to be a module?

Daniel

--
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/