linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v4 10/22] arch/tile/kernel/time: set ->min_delta_ticks and ->max_delta

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:   Thu, 08 Sep 2016 13:21:12 +0200
From:   Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
To:     Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 10/22] arch/tile/kernel/time: set ->min_delta_ticks and ->max_delta_ticks

Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com> writes:

> On 08/22/2016 07:33 PM, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> With the yet to come introduction of NTP correction awareness to the
>> clockevent core, drivers should report their valid ranges in units of
>> cycles to the latter.
>>
>> Currently, the tile's timer clockevent device is initialized as follows:
>>
>>   evt->max_delta_ns = clockevent_delta2ns(MAX_TICK, evt);
>>
>> and
>>
>>   .min_delta_ns = 1000,
>>
>> The first one translates to a ->max_delta_ticks value of MAX_TICK.
>> For the latter, note that the clockevent core will superimpose a
>> minimum of 1us by itself -- setting ->min_delta_ticks to 1 is safe here.
>>
>> Initialize ->min_delta_ticks and ->max_delta_ticks with these values.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/tile/kernel/time.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> Thanks.  Taken into the tile tree.

I thank you for caring, but may I ask you to drop this again?

The reasons are twofold:

1.) It isn't clear yet whether this series is worth it and will be
    accepted at all (hence the "RFC" tag). This patch by itself would
    not make any sense.

2.) The patches in this series depend heavily on each other. So I'd
    personally prefer if those more or less trivial changes to arch/
    could be taken through the same tree as the rest, i.e. through the
    timers/core tree. I have no idea whether this is feasible and
    perhaps I'll have to get back to you. But for now, getting this
    patch removed from your tree would certainly simplify things a
    lot for me...

Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience,

Nicolai Stange