linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: reorganize pvclock_gtod

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: <09535a66-d72c-6983-3c10-09d12ed9e632@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:35:58 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     mtosatti@...hat.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86: reorganize pvclock_gtod_data members

On 23/01/20 12:32, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Likely a personal preference but the suggested naming is a bit
> confusing: we use 'base_cycles' to keep 'xtime_nsec' and 'offset' to
> keep ... 'base'. Not that I think that 'struct timekeeper' is perfect
> but at least it is documented. Should we maybe just stick to it (and
> name 'struct pvclock_clock' fields accordingly?)
> 

The problem is that xtime_nsec is not nanoseconds, and I'd really not
want to have a worse name just for consistency. :(  I chose
"base_cycles" as an incremental improvement over nsec_base, even though
that meant also changing struct timekeeper's "base" to "offset".

Paolo