Hi Will, On 05/08/2013 05:06 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hello Christopher, > > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 04:48:26PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote: >> On 05/07/2013 05:08 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> That seems like a lot of effort in order to preserve something that isn't >>> even meaningful. We might be better just zeroing the value, but then we'll >>> inevitably get bug reports of it being `wrong'. >> >> If I were in to filing bug reports about bogomips values, I would be just as >> likely to do it for 1, 10000, 99999, and get_random_bytes(...) as for 0. > > That's a fair point, and one of the reasons I posted this as an RFC. I'd > basically like an `obviously bogus' value so that people don't think `hey, > my CPU sure it slow' and instead think `looks like this really is a bogus > value after all'. > > However, you're probably right that there isn't a number which can convey > that information properly, so how about we just put a string in there along > the lines of "not reported" and leave it at that?
That sounds reasonable to me. Christopher -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by the Linux Foundation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/