[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230511064805.GF14287@atomide.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 09:48:05 +0300
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@...il.com>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@...onical.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iopoll: Do not use timekeeping in
read_poll_timeout_atomic()
Hi,
* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be> [230510 13:23]:
> read_poll_timeout_atomic() uses ktime_get() to implement the timeout
> feature, just like its non-atomic counterpart. However, there are
> several issues with this, due to its use in atomic contexts:
>
> 1. When called in the s2ram path (as typically done by clock or PM
> domain drivers), timekeeping may be suspended, triggering the
> WARN_ON(timekeeping_suspended) in ktime_get():
Maybe add a comment to read_poll_timeout_atomic() saying it can be
used also with timekeeping_suspended?
Otherwise a few years later it might get broken when somebody goes
to patch it without testing it with timekeeping_suspended :)
Other than that looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists