linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI: implement acpi_os_get

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: <20130513114432.GK20562@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 May 2013 14:44:32 +0300
From:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: implement acpi_os_get_timer() according the spec

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 01:38:46PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 01:27:51 PM Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > ACPI Timer() opcode should return monotonically increasing clock with 100ns
> > granularity. Implement this with the help of ktime_get().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> That looks reasobable.  Have you tested it?

Very lightly. Basically I added some debug printks() between two
successsive calls of Timer() and it seemed like it returned correct time.

It is certainly better than returning t+1 every time Timer() is called :)
--
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/