linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] timers: Don't search for expired timers while TIMER

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: <5ad54baa-9019-fdb3-040b-057caf927ca3@ni.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Mar 2018 11:19:46 -0600
From:   Haris Okanovic <haris.okanovic@...com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, julia.cartwright@...com, gratian.crisan@...com,
        anna-maria@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] timers: Don't search for expired timers while
 TIMER_SOFTIRQ is scheduled



On 03/02/2018 10:39 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-03-02 10:29:56 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
>>> Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
>>
>> I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting to ml
>> (cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4 sometime today (US Central
>> Time) if everything goes well.
>>
>> Are you also asking for a 4.9 version? I'm fine leaving it out of 4.9.
> 
> Hmmm. Maybe this is a form of miscommunication here :)

Yea, I agree :) Let me try to summarize: When I originally asked this 
question back in March, rt was on 4.9. I was asking back then to pull 
the V3 revision of my timer patch (replacing the old V2). Given that RT 
already moved to 4.14 in the meantime, backed out V3, and V3 no longer 
applies 4.14, I'm fine leaving everything as-is! I post a V4 (for 4.14) 
when I finish retesting it.

> So my understanding is that you complain/ask why there is an older
> version of the patch still in v4.9-RT:
> 
> |It was added back into 4.9 at some point after v4.9.30-rt20. I see an older
> |version in v4.9.68-rt60, for example, hence my original email. It was dropped
> |sometime thereafter, presumably because it no longer cleanly applies. I don't
> |see it in v4.14.20-rt17, for example.
> 
> So I ask where you see the old version of your patch in v4.9-RT. Yes it
> was added, then removed and it never appeared back in. However, I don't
> see anymore in v4.9.68-rt60.
> 
>> -- Haris
> 
> Sebastian
>