linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 03/10] timers: Rework idle logic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:50:39 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 03/10] timers: Rework idle logic

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 01:11:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Storing next event and determining whether the base is idle can be done in
> __next_timer_interrupt(). 
> 
> Preparatory patch for new call sites which need this information as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/time/timer.c |   43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1358,8 +1358,11 @@ static int next_pending_bucket(struct ti
>  /*
>   * Search the first expiring timer in the various clock levels. Caller must
>   * hold base->lock.
> + *
> + * Stores the next expiry time in base. The return value indicates whether
> + * the base is empty or not.
>   */
> -static unsigned long __next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)
> +static bool __next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)

Can't say I'm a fan of this.. I sort of see where this is going, but the
fact remains that __next_timer_interrupt(), as a function, makes me
expect a return value of time/timer quantity.