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]

Message-ID: <20170421144358.GC2586@lerouge>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:43:59 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 03/10] timers: Rework idle logic

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:50:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

Maybe we can just do a rename like fetch_next_timer_interrupt() or
update_next_timer_interrupt()?