linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv1] timekeeping: Update multiplier when NTP frequency is set directly

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:17:41 +0200
From:   Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To:     John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] timekeeping: Update multiplier when NTP frequency is
 set directly

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:42:05AM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:53 AM, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com> wrote:
> > -void update_wall_time(void)
> > +static void timekeeping_advance(bool force_update)
> 
> This is kind of a nit, but mind switching out bool for an enum?  Using
> something like TK_ADV_NORMAL and TK_ADV_FORCE?
> 
> > +void update_wall_time(void)
> > +{
> > +       timekeeping_advance(false);
> > +}
> 
> The enum makes usage like timekeeping_advance(false) a little less
> opaque to the reader ("Wait, don't advance? Let me go look at the
> function").
> 
> We got bitten by this earlier when we had the old
> "timekeeping_update(tk, true, false, true)" usage.

Ok. That make sense. I'll send a v2.

Thanks,

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar