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: <E3FA56EF-0B3C-4DBE-9A63-428EB342887D@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:11:17 +0000
From:   Tao Ren <taoren@...com>
To:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
CC:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Christopher Covington <cov@...com>, Tian Fang <tfang@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/fttmr010: fix set_next_event handler

On 9/20/18, 8:33 PM, "Joel Stanley" <joel@....id.au> wrote:

> 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?

Thank you Joel for the testing.
Sure I can share the test (a small c program which measures delay introduced by nanosleep()), but what would be the preferred way to share it? Like a format-patch? Or maybe I should refine the test and send to openbmc for review?


Thanks,
Tao Ren