linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tick/broadcast: Remove redundant code in tick_check_new

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711131738140.1851@nanos>
Date:   Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:54:34 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
cc:     mingo@...nel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
        Srinivas REDDY Eeda <srinivas.eeda@...cle.com>,
        Joe Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tick/broadcast: Remove redundant code in
 tick_check_new_device()

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:

> There is no way a timer used as broadcast clockevent device is also used as
> percpu tick clockevent device currently.

Correct.

> It's better to put related code in tick_install_broadcast_device(), but I feel
> it's harmless to give it back to the clockevents layer. Pls correct me if I'm
> wrong.

You already established, that it _cannot_ be the broadcast device and the
per cpu device at the same time. So that condition can never be true. What
do you want to put into tick_install_broadcast_device()? This second
paragraph doesn't make sense, unless I'm missing something.

Thanks,

	tglx