Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] Calling check_system_tsc_reliable() before unsynchronized_tsc() | From | Zhenzhong Duan <> | Date | Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:30:25 +0800 |
| |
在 2017/6/22 21:56, Thomas Gleixner 写道: > Zhenzhong, > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Zhenzhong Duan wrote: > > So the patch format is now correct, but the subject line is missing a > proper subsystem prefix. Please use 'git log 'path/to/patched/file' next > time to see what the usually used prefix for a file is. > > In this case it's: x86/tsc > > Also please do not use [PATCH RESEND] when your patch is different from the > version you sent before. Please use [PATCH v2] instead. Got it. > >> unsynchronized_tsc() checks value of tsc_clocksource_reliable which is set by >> check_system_tsc_reliable(). It's better to move check_system_tsc_reliable() at >> front. > Please make your statements affirmative. 'It's better' is a weak expression. > >> Though X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC is usually set for TSC reliable system, just in >> case. > So what you wanted to say here is: > > tsc_clocksource_reliable is initialized in check_system_tsc_reliable(), > but it is checked in unsynchronized_tsc() which is called before the > initialization. > > In practice that's not an issue because systems which mark the TSC > reliable have X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC set as well, which is evaluated > in unsynchronized_tsc() before tsc_clocksource_reliable. > > Reorder the calls so initialization happens before usage. Exactly. > > All this information is also documented in Documentation/process/. I'll read them. > > No need to resend. I'll fix it up for you this time. Ok, thanks.
zduan
| |