| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 06:25:34 +0200 From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 4/6] time: introduce leap second functional interface On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 01:24:57PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On 05/21/2012 12:18 PM, Richard Cochran wrote: > Hrm. I prefer to keep things fairly flat (even having time.h and > timex.h bugs me somewhat). But having such a separation could be > useful, but maybe at a slightly more coarse level. Something like > timekeeping-internal.h and time.h, splitting all the general > accessors away from the non-general. Yes, time.h is full of stuff not really for public use. When compiling on an atom netbook as I do, it gets really noticeable and annoying when you tweak some private prototype, and then the whole darn kernel rebuilds. > The locking order is pretty straight forward: timekeeper.lock -> > ntp_lock. This only gets messy when you require timekeeping data > from the ntp context, but usually we provide the required data via > the caller. But better documentation is always welcome. The icky part is the fact that ntp would need access to timekeeper state while holding ntp_lock. Richard -- 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