linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] posix-timers: add clock

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, 14 Mar 2024 19:42:51 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Sagi Maimon <maimon.sagi@...il.com>
Cc: richardcochran@...il.com, luto@...nel.org, datglx@...utronix.de,
 mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
 x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
 peterz@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, sohil.mehta@...el.com,
 rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, nphamcs@...il.com, palmer@...ive.com,
 keescook@...omium.org, legion@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
 mszeredi@...hat.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com, reibax@...il.com,
 davem@...emloft.net, brauner@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] posix-timers: add clock_compare system call

On Thu, Mar 14 2024 at 17:46, Sagi Maimon wrote:

Can you please trim your replies? I really have better things to do than
doing detective work to find 10 new lines within 200+ irrelevant ones.

> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:12 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> Please read and follow the documentation provided at:
>>
>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html
>>
> I have missed this part on prviews reply.
> I have read the documentation above and I think that the variable
> declarations at the beginning of a function is in reverse fir tree
> order meaning from big to small, but I guess that I am missing something,
> can you please explain what is wrong with the variable declaration,
> so I can fix it.

>> > +     struct timespec64 ts_a, ts_a1, ts_b, ts_a2;
>> > +     struct system_device_crosststamp xtstamp_a1, xtstamp_a2, xtstamp_b;
>> > +     const struct k_clock *kc_a, *kc_b;
>> > +     ktime_t ktime_a;
>> > +     s64 ts_offs_err = 0;
>> > +     int error = 0;
>> > +     bool crosstime_support_a = false;
>> > +     bool crosstime_support_b = false;

It's not about the data type. Look at the three layouts and figure out
which one is better to parse.