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

Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2uaNXV35D+DtcJ4Pqm11+ORPr0UQsaA2ts6cQRW7vaMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:20:13 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
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 5:07 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:58 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > I care less about these since ktime_get_real_fast_ns() already
> > exists. My preference would be leaving alons the _fast_ns()
> > functions for now, but making everything else consistent instead.
> >
> > Thomas created the _fast_ns() accessors with a specific application
> > in mind, and I suppose we don't really want them to be used much
> > beyond that. I wonder if we should try to come up with a better
> > name instead of "fast" that makes the purpose clearer and does
> > not suggest that it's faster to read than the "coarse" version.
>
> Oh shoot, I just submitted v3 having not seen this. Does v3's 4/4 look
> fine, or shall I undo the _fast switcheroo and resubmit?

I'd still prefer to leave out anything touching the _fast functions
from patches 1 and 4. AFAICT, that would leave ktime_get_tai_ns()
and ktime_get_boot_ns() to be renamed to clocktai() and bootime()
respectively.

       Arnd