linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] m68k: virt: Remove LEGACY_TIMER

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]

Date:   Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:13:23 +0100
From:   Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] m68k: virt: Remove LEGACY_TIMER_TICK

Le 13/01/2022 à 12:42, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:32 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
>> Le 13/01/2022 à 12:20, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:35 AM Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Move virt machine to generic clockevents.
>>>>
>>>> cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <laurent@...ier.eu>
>>>
>>> The change looks good, but it appears that you only just add the legacy code
>>> in the same series, and it would be easier to just add the correct version
>>> first.
>>
>> In fact, I'd like to keep it separated for two reasons:
>> - it can be used as an example for people that want to move from legacy to clockevents,
>> - the machine with legacy timer tick is in use for more than one year by debian to propose a m68k
>> buildd and dev machine, so it is really well tested and robust. If there is a bug in my clockevents
>> use it will be easier to detect.
> 
> In general, it should be easier to do a correct generic driver than
> an implementation for the legacy interface.
> 
>>>> diff --git a/arch/m68k/virt/timer.c b/arch/m68k/virt/timer.c
>>>> index 843bf6ed7e1a..767b01f75abb 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/m68k/virt/timer.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/m68k/virt/timer.c
>>>
>>> How about moving the entire file to drivers/clocksource/timer-goldfish.c?
>>> It shouldn't even be architecture specific any more at this point. It probably
>>> still is in practice, but that could be addressed when another architecture
>>> wants to share the implementation.
>>
>> For the moment I'd like to have my m68k virt machine merged, and I think it will be easier if I hit
>> only one subsystem/maintainer. Moreover I don't know if I use correctly the goldfish-rtc,  so for
>> the moment I think it's better if I keep it hidden in arch/m68k/virt.
>>
>> But I can propose to send a patch to move this code to drivers/clocksource/timer-goldfish.c once the
>> machine is merged.
> 
> If you are not sure about that implementation, I would think that's an
> extra reason to
> submit it to the clocksource maintainers for review (added to Cc
> here). You should still
> be able to merge the driver in the new location through the m68k tree
> as part of your
> series, but regardless of where it goes I think it needs an Ack from them.
> 

OK, I move my code to drivers/clocksource/timer-goldfish.c and send a new version of the series.

Thanks,
Laurent