| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <94a0d4530909140558nd8d2c47lc9954563c80a574f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:58:24 +0300 From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com> To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: remove unused code in delay.S On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 01:21:00AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: >> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 11:28:47PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > > bhi __delay >> > > > mov pc, lr >> > > > ENDPROC(__udelay) >> > > > >> > > Hi >> > > >> > > why was this code there in the first place ? >> > >> > To make the delay loop more stable and predictable on older CPUs. >> >> So why has it been commented out, if it's needed for that? > > We moved on and it penalises later CPUs, leading to udelay providing > shorter delays than requested. > > So the choice was either stable and predictable on older CPUs but > buggy on newer CPUs, or correct on all CPUs but gives unnecessarily > longer delays on older CPUs. Why not add an #ifdef CPU_V4 or whatever? -- Felipe Contreras -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists