linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] tick/broadcast: Split __tick_broadcast_oneshot

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: <8735u13112.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 01 Jun 2021 20:14:33 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>, fweisbec@...il.com,
        john.stultz@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lorenzo@...gle.com, maz@...nel.org, mika.penttila@...tfour.com,
        sboyd@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] tick/broadcast: Split __tick_broadcast_oneshot_control() into a helper

On Tue, Jun 01 2021 at 13:13, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 04:29:20PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, May 27 2021 at 12:56, Will Deacon wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 07:35:03PM +0800, Xin Hao wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 在 2021/5/27 下午4:22, Will Deacon 写道:
>> >> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:06PM +0800, Xin Hao wrote:
>> >> > >       I  had backport you  tick/broadcast: Prefer per-cpu relatives patches,
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > but i did not get the true result,  the Wakeup Devices are all null, why?
>> >> > Probably because you don't have any suitable per-cpu timers to act as a
>> >> > wakeup. Do you have a per-cpu timer registered with CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, you are right, but i want to know why the timer do not support 
>> >> CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU.
>> >
>> > I defer to Thomas on this one.
>> 
>> How should I know what kind of timers this hardware has?
>
> Duh, sorry, I replied to the wrong question. I meant to defer the decision
> about whether to print "<NULL>" if the wakeup timer is absent, or whether to
> omit the line entirely.
>
> I went with the former in the patches you queued as it's both consistent
> with the rest of the code and probably (?) easier to parse.

That makes more sense. I just kept it as is. The <NULL> is fine.

Thanks,

        tglx