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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:06:00 -0500 From: Zhihui Zhang <zzhsuny@...il.com> To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case Sure, I believe that comments should always match the code. In this case, using either LVL_SIZE - 1 or LVL_SIZE is fine based on my understanding about 20 days ago. But I could be wrong and miss some subtle details. Anyway, my point is about readability. thanks, On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:41 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Zhihui Zhang <zzhsuny@...il.com> wrote: >> Adjust the time start of each level to match the comments. Note that >> LVL_START(n) is never used for n = 0 case. Also, each level (except >> level 0) has more than enough room to accommodate all its timers. > > So instead of just covering what your patch does, can you explain in > some detail why this patch is useful? What net effect does it bring? > What sort of bugs would it solve? > > thanks > -john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists