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: <CA+55aFzV8Q20vL83xa+1UKzeQ0w-SAksCDxJD4szALRDCSUZ2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 09:23:10 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        Kevin Easton <kevin@...rana.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT patch 0/7] timekeeping: Unify clock MONOTONIC and clock BOOTTIME

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> This really needs lot of testing, documentation updates and more input from
> userspace folks to make a final decision.

Honestly, I don't think we'd get the testing this kind of change needs
except by just trying it.

I'm willing to merge this in the 4.17 merge window, with the
understanding that if people end up reporting issues, we may just have
to revert it all, and chalk it up to a learning experience - and add
the appropriate commentary in the kernel code about exactly what it
was that depended on that MONO/BOOT difference.

One non-technical thing I would ask: use some other word than
"conflate". Maybe just "combine". Or better yet, "unify".

"Conflate" technically and historically means the same thing as
combine, but has very much gathered a side meaning of "confuse".

So yes, "conflate" is indeed about mixing or combining, but it's
typically used in the sense of a *bad* combination or mixing. So
"trying to conflate two issues" means "trying to mix two issues that
are not the same into one".

So "unify" and "conflate" mean both the same thing and almost exactly
the opposite at the same time.

And yes, you will find dictionaries (and linguists) that hold purely
to the old meaning. As always, there are fogeys that can't get over
the fact that meanings meander and change.

               Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ