[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c7cc57a247747d164a870ebbbedb1b8b756c73fd.camel@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 15:59:47 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...com>
To: <paulmck@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC clocksource 2/5] clocksource: Retry clock read if
long delays detected
On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 11:53 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > + wdagain_nsec = clocksource_cyc2ns(delta, watchdog-
> > > mult, watchdog->shift);
> > + if (wdagain_nsec < 0 || wdagain_nsec >
> > WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW) {
> > + wderr_nsec = wdagain_nsec;
> > + if (nretries++ < max_read_retries)
> > + goto retry;
> > + }
> >
> > Given that clocksource_cyc2ns uses unsigned multiplication
> > followed by a right shift, do we need to test for <0?
>
> I am worried about the possibility of the "shift" argument to
> clocksource_cyc2ns() being zero. For example, unless I am missing
> something, clocksource_tsc has a zero .shift field.
Oh, good point!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists