linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really not bound to a cpu

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: <8736831pv0.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 23:34:11 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     psodagud@...eaurora.org
Cc:     john.stultz@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, saravanak@...gle.com,
        pkondeti@...eaurora.org, Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really not bound to a cpu

Prasad,

psodagud@...eaurora.org writes:
> On 2020-05-13 13:28, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> psodagud@...eaurora.org writes:
>>> It is not clear to me how to avoid #ifdef's in this case. Could you
>>> please share an example here?
>> 
>> The answer is further down already:
>
> I think, you are referring stub functions. Yes. I can reduce some of the 
> #ifdefs with stub functions as you mentioned and not all the cases 
> right?
> I have introduced two variables timer_base_deferrable and 
> deferrable_pending and I can put stub function where ever is possible. 
> But it may not be appropriate to have stub function for all the 
> references of these variables right? Correct me if my understanding is 
> wrong.

Is this a quiz or are you expecting me to make your homework?

Thanks,

        Thomas