linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case

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:   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