linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/25] hrtimer: Enable soft and hard hrtimer

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: <20170927164745.GK17526@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:47:45 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....org>, keescook@...omium.org,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/25] hrtimer: Enable soft and hard hrtimer

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:54:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> > > So why expose these extra bases at all, why not stick another flag in
> > > MODE? These extra bases is a pure implementation detail imo; you could
> > > equally implement the functionality without (albeit at extra cost).
> 
> Right and that cost too high.

Yes, no question about that.

> > It was Thomas' request not to use a flag for this.
> 
> We can make that a flag as well. There is no hard requirement for making it
> a CLOCK. Peter is right that it's a pure internal implementation detail and
> we can hide it from the outside world.

Yeah, that was my point.