linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 02/25] timekeeping:Introduce the current_kernel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:19:44 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, heenasirwani@...il.com,
	pang.xunlei@...aro.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	y2038@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/25] timekeeping:Introduce the current_kernel_time64()
 function with timespec64 type

On Mon, 1 Jun 2015, Baolin Wang wrote:

Subject line is horrible again.

"timekeeping: Introduce current_kernel_time64()"

Is precise and sufficient.

> This patch adds current_kernel_time64() function with timespec64 type,
> and makes current_kernel_time() 'static inline' and moves it to timekeeping.h
> file.

Again, you describe WHAT the patch is doing first and clutter the
changelog with completely irrelevant information.
 
> It is convenient for user to get the current kernel time with timespec64 type,

What's conveniant about it?

> and delete the current_kernel_time() function easily in timekeeping.h file. That
> is ready for 2038 when get the current time.

This makes no sense at all.

Again you should describe WHY current_kernel_time() must be replaced.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/