linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/15] tick/nohz: Remove duplicate between lowres and highres handlers

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]

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:30:41 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peng Liu <liupeng17@...ovo.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Anna-Maria Behnsen
 <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] tick/nohz: Remove duplicate between lowres and
 highres handlers

On Thu, Jan 25 2024 at 12:58, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24 2024 at 18:04, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> > +/*
>> > + * We rearm the timer until we get disabled by the idle code.
>> > + * Called with interrupts disabled.
>> > + */
>> > +static enum hrtimer_restart tick_nohz_highres_handler(struct hrtimer *timer)
>> 
>> Isn't that a misnomer now?
>
> Would tick_nohz_hrtimer_handler() make more sense then? Because it's clearly
> an hrtimer handler, just emulated in low-res mode.

Kinda. tick_nohz_handler() would be sufficient too.