linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] clocksource/cadence_ttc: Store timer frequency in driver data

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]

Date:	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 22:58:26 +0100
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:	Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
CC:	Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] clocksource/cadence_ttc: Store timer frequency
 in driver data

On 12/18/2013 05:47 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/17/2013 08:21 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 05:04:50PM -0800, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>>>> It is not allowed to call clk_get_rate() from interrupt context. To
>>>> avoid such calls the timer input frequency is stored in the driver's
>>>> data struct which makes it accessible to the driver in any context.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> I doubt that we'll resolve all issues with this series before the
>>> holidays or even the next merge window. Could you take this patch into
>>> your tree for 3.14? It is not directly related to the cpufreq work and
>>> fixes an actual issue that triggers a kernel WARN under some condition
>>> (I missed preserving the details and the trace). That would take the
>>> easy stuff out of the way and we can focus on the more controversial
>>> changes.
>>
>> You are asking to take it for 3.14 but shouldn't it go as a 3.13 fix ?
>
> That's also an option. As I remember, the patch fixes a kernel WARN. The
> system still seemed operational though. Up to you whether this is
> considered severe enough for the 3.13 series. I'm happy either way.

I was not able to reproduce the WARN with my board.

Please, could you give the WARN or give the procedure to reproduce it ?

Thanks
   -- Daniel


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/