linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/fttmr010: fix set_next

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: <CAARXrtmpUn3DKguiQSubZvCM3sJ--QxtzoYVoEvC-81udH7BLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2018 14:22:01 +0800
From:   Lei YU <mine260309@...il.com>
To:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc:     taoren@...com, cov@...com, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linus.walleij@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/fttmr010: fix set_next_event handler

> >
> > Make sense. I actually booted up kernel on qemu-palmetto (ast2400) but I'm doubting if test is valid because it depends on how qemu emulates the hardware. It would be great if someone can help to verify the patch on physical ast2400.
>
> I gave this a spin on the ast2400. It looked okay, but I was wondering
> if you could share you test case so I can run the same test?

Tested on Palmetto (OpenPOWER P8 with AST2400), and it does show the fix is
working on AST2400 as well.
Without the patch, usleep(100) takes tens of milliseconds randomly;
With the patch, usleep(100) takes about 600~700 microseconds stably.

Tested-by: Lei YU <mine260309@...il.com>