On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:36 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> On ARM, I'm noticing the 'bug' message from check_critical_timing()
> where two calls to get_cycles() are compared and the 2nd is assumed to
> be >= the first.
>
> This isn't properly handling the case of rollover which occurs
> relatively often with fast hardware clocks and 32-bit cycle counters.
>
> Is this really a bug? If the get_cycles() can be assumed to run between
> 0 and (cycles_t)~0, using the right unsigned math could get a proper
> delta even in the rollover case. Is this a safe assumption?
Seems like the check should really be using something like time_before()
time_after() which takes the rollover into account .. What I don't
understand is why we don't see those on x86 ..
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
