linux-kernel - Re: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of read_persistent

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: <20090823084740.GA7651@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:47:40 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, dwalker@...o99.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	johnstul@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of
	read_persistent_clock()

* Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar writes:
> 
> > * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > I overlooked a case in the powerpc version of read_persistent_lock.
> > > New patch:
> > 
> > the patches are already committed and this patch doesnt apply - 
> > mind sending a delta fix against tip:master:
> 
> Is that going to leave us with a bisection breakage on powerpc 
> once this stuff goes upstream?  If so please fold the fix into the 
> original patch.

Do you ask Linus to rebase the upstream kernel as well, if the 
powerpc or x86 build happens to break? There's more than a dozen 
such cases per development cycle triggering on my tests alone. If 
not, why not?

The thing is, we'll probably redo this portion of the timer tree as 
i found other problems in testing, but generally the disadvantages 
of a build breakage with a very small non-bisectability window has 
to be weighed against the disadvantages of a rebase (which are 
significant).

The equation does not automatically flip in favor of a rebase as you 
seem to suggest - in fact it generally goes _against_ a rebase.

	Ingo
--
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/