| 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: <b9df5fa10910300818u4b104a50if01f32c26be580d8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:18:57 +0600 From: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org Subject: [PATCH] x86, tsc: Remove checking cpu_has_tsc when CONFIG_X86_TSC=n. When CONFIG_X86_TSC=n, we do not need to check cpu_has_tsc, we can simply return with 0. Moreover cpu_has_tsc indicates whether cpu tsc feature on or not, so it doesn't matter when CONFIG_X86_TSC=n. Am I right? Or I'm missing anything? ---- Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com> --- linus/arch/x86/include/asm/tsc.h 2009-10-17 13:12:59.000000000 +0600 +++ rakib/arch/x86/include/asm/tsc.h 2009-10-30 21:55:29.000000000 +0600 @@ -24,8 +24,7 @@ static inline cycles_t get_cycles(void) unsigned long long ret = 0; #ifndef CONFIG_X86_TSC - if (!cpu_has_tsc) - return 0; + return 0; #endif rdtscll(ret); @@ -39,8 +38,7 @@ static __always_inline cycles_t vget_cyc * access boot_cpu_data (which is not VDSO-safe): */ #ifndef CONFIG_X86_TSC - if (!cpu_has_tsc) - return 0; + return 0; #endif return (cycles_t)__native_read_tsc(); } -- 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