linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/clock: interface to allow timestamps early in boot

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]

Message-ID: <27816ace-bbc2-ccad-d2db-c4804a61ebe3@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 13:47:37 -0400
From:   Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/clock: interface to allow timestamps early
 in boot

>>> And because its called only once, it does not need to be marked __init()
>>> and must be kept around forever, right?
>>
>> This is because every other architecture implements read_boot_clock64()
>> without __init: arm, s390. Beside, the original weak stub does not have __init
>> macro. So, I can certainly try to add it for x86, but I am not sure what is
>> the behavior once __init section is gone, but weak implementation stays.
> 
> And what about fixing that everywhere?
> 

Sure, I will update it everywhere.