linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] timekeeping: add missing

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: <CAHmME9qDAEzZKBDowLmdaxtc8fJqp-w_cvOWsvubh5Yr=Kgm-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:46:32 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] timekeeping: add missing _ns functions for coarse accessors

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:45 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> I would prefer the 'coarse' on the other side, i.e.
> ktime_get_coarse_real_ns instead of ktime_get_real_coarse_ns,
> as this is what we already have with ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64.
>
> I originally went with that order to avoid the function sounding
> "real coarse", although I have to admit that it was before Thomas
> fixed it in e3ff9c3678b4 ("timekeeping: Repair ktime_get_coarse*()
> granularity"). ;-)

I can do this, but that means also I'll change get_real_fast to
get_fast_real, too, in order to be consistent. Is that okay?