On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:18:06PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: > > 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? >
Seems reasonable, but I don't have a sparc machine to verify this on. > dlg >
