linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] timekeeping: Add persistent_clock

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: <50CA7EE4.3000306@linaro.org>
Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:20:36 -0800
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alek.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] timekeeping: Add persistent_clock_exist flag

On 12/12/2012 06:05 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
> In current kernel, there are several places which need to check
> whether there is a persistent clock for the platform. Current check
> is done by calling the read_persistent_clock() and validating the
> return value.
>
> Add such a flag to make code more readable and call read_persistent_clock()
> only once for all the checks.
Sorry.. What  the actual benefit of this patch set?   (Usually with 
changelogs its better to explain why you're doing something, rather then 
just what you're doing.)

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems this doesn't change the 
resulting logic of the code, does it?  As I thought we already check 
read_persistent_clocks() output (and make sure its null) before using 
the rtc HCTOSYS_DEVICE.

thanks
-john

--
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/