linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] hrtimer: Provide clock_was_set

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1342013914.3462.157.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:38:34 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] hrtimer: Provide clock_was_set_delayed()

On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 09:05 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> 
> Both of those options seem like a lot of work for something that happens once
> every 3-4 years, and may not happen ever again[1].  Based on that statement, if
> we're going to modify code I would prefer that it be as lightweight as possible.
>  So, in terms of the kernel, option 2 is likely the best way to go rather than
> introducing new code that will be used once every 3-4 years. 

Full agreed, however if we implement clock_was_set() like I just
proposed we'd use that code for every time the clock was modified, which
is a lot more often.

That said, I'm not a particular fan of it..
--
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/