[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v847uaxz.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 21:38:00 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, John Stultz
<jstultz@...gle.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar
<mingo@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Eric Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 20/50] posix-timers: Consolidate timer setup
On Tue, Apr 16 2024 at 18:12, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>
>> hrtimer based and CPU timers have their own way to install the new interval
>> and to reset overrun and signal handling related data.
>>
>> Create a helper function and do the same operation for all variants.
>>
>> This also makes the handling of the interval consistent. It's only stored
>> when the timer is actually armed, i.e. timer->it_value != 0. Before that it
>> was stored unconditionally for posix CPU timers and conditionally for the
>> other posix timers.
>
> Shouldn't we do this similar to the gettime() and set it_interval
> unconditionally?
No. If it_value = 0 then the timer is disarmed, so it_interval is
irrelevant and just should be 0 for sanity sake.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists