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  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]
Date:	Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:16:55 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Yong Wang <>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	"" <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, therm: Only read the initial value of thermal LVT
 entry on BSP

* Yong Wang <> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 11:25:21AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > i dont disagree with the fix, but could we please do it a bit cleaner, 
> > and initialize a proper file-scope lvtthrm_init value from a different 
> > boot-CPU-only function? (not intel_init_thermal)
> > 
> Thanks for your comments. Just want to make sure I understand correctly.
> By 'file-scope', do you want me to define lvtthrm_init as a static
> variable but not to define it in any function?

Correct - i'd suggest to put it next to other file-scope variables at 
the top of the .c file. Maybe make it __read_mostly as well.

> > that makes it cleaner, and also it will work if we dont boot on 
> > cpu==0. (should that ever occur)
> > 
> May I know when will this happen?

It's not really expected - we factorize the CPU IDs (which are logical) 
so that the boot CPU is 0. But relying on cpu==0 is the boot cpu is not 
clean and the resulting code is harder to read.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists