linux-kernel - Re: Bug: loops_per_jiffy based udelay() mostly shorter than requested

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110112222337.GK11039@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:23:37 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Bug: loops_per_jiffy based udelay() mostly shorter than
	requested

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 01:19:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Any suggestions or thoughts, or should we not care too much if udelay()
> > produces slightly shorter than desired delays?  Or am I doing something
> > horribly wrong in the ARM code?
> 
> Judging by the numbers you quote, I would definitely put this in the
> "don't care too much".

Thanks - that's my thoughts too.  I think I'm still going to push out
the rounding patch for the sake of correctness even though it's down
in the noise.
--
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/