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: <20121214013725.GA11276@feng-snb>
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:37:25 +0800
From:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
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

Hi John,

Thanks for the review.

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:20:36PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> 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.)

The main benefits is not bother to do the rtc_resume and rtc_suspend work
if persistent clock exists. Current RTC suspend/resume code will do many
time calculation and compensation work at first, and then call
timekeeping_inject_sleeptime() which will just return for platform with
persistent clock, what I did in this patchset is to put the check at
the start, also I save the persistent_clock_exist flag for all possible
check after timekeeping_init().

> 
> 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.

No, it doesn't change the code logic. 

Thanks,
Feng

--
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/