linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 12/26] timekeeping: Introduce auxiliary timekeepers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANDhNCqXMnEOC58PN03M+9-=DSty2FoZpJDz+OUuzd08uQdoEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 19:41:27 -0700
From: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>, 
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, 
	Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>, Werner Abt <werner.abt@...nberg-usa.com>, 
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, 
	Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>, 
	Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>, Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>, 
	Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 12/26] timekeeping: Introduce auxiliary timekeepers

On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 1:33 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
>
> Provide timekeepers for auxiliary clocks and initialize them during
> boot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> ---
>  kernel/time/timekeeping.c |   22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> ---
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -2630,3 +2640,11 @@ void hardpps(const struct timespec64 *ph
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(hardpps);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_NTP_PPS */
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_POSIX_AUX_CLOCKS
> +static __init void tk_aux_setup(void)
> +{
> +       for (int i = TIMEKEEPER_AUX; i <= TIMEKEEPER_AUX_LAST; i++)

My only thought here, seeing its use,  would it be better if
TIMEKEEPER_AUX was TIMEKEEPER_AUX_FIRST?

Acked-by: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
thanks
-john