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? Will -- 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/
