On 9 Dec 2013, at 10:01 pm, David Gwynne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 9 Dec 2013, at 6:59 pm, Bret Lambert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:55:53PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: >>> this is a demonstration of using TIMEOUT_INITIALIZED(). >>> >>> because we know the timeout is always set up correctly, we dont >>> have to test for it all over the place. >>> >> >> [a bit of snipping...] >> >>> - if (timeout_initialized(&rnd_timeout)) >>> - nanotime(&ts); >>> + nanotime(&ts); >> >> I'm not sure you can do this; check revision 1.132 of this file: >> >> be more careful with nanotime() calls in early entropy storage, since >> at least sparc may not have the clock mapped (found by miod). >> while here, protect some more timeout_*() calls with timeout_initialized() >> >> Which reversed a diff that did much of what you're doing here. >> >> So calling nanotime without knowing that your clocks are fully wired up >> appears to be a possibility (or at least was, at one point). > > awesome. ill have a less mechanical look shortly. how about we check cold there instead? dlg
