lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch V2 10/50] posix-cpu-timers: Handle SIGEV_NONE timers correctly in timer_get()
Date
On Fri, Apr 12 2024 at 13:40, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
>> - if (iv && (timer->it_requeue_pending & REQUEUE_PENDING))
>> + if (iv && ((timer->it_requeue_pending & REQUEUE_PENDING) || sigev_none))
>> expires = bump_cpu_timer(timer, now);
>> else
>> expires = cpu_timer_getexpires(&timer->it.cpu);
>> @@ -809,11 +811,13 @@ static void __posix_cpu_timer_get(struct
>> itp->it_value = ns_to_timespec64(expires - now);
>> } else {
> Why not make this else condition?
> } else if (!sigev_none) {
> And not need to change the rest of the code?

Duh, yes.
/*
>> - * The timer should have expired already, but the firing
>> - * hasn't taken place yet. Say it's just about to expire.
>> + * A single shot SIGEV_NONE timer must return 0, when it is
>> + * expired! Timers which have a real signal delivery mode
>> + * must return a remaining time greater than 0 because the
>> + * signal has not yet been delivered.
>> */
>> - itp->it_value.tv_nsec = 1;
>> - itp->it_value.tv_sec = 0;
>> + if (!sigev_none)
>> + itp->it_value.tv_nsec = 1;
>
> Do you perhaps need a comment somewhere that itp is zeroed in
> do_timer_gettime? The code now depends upon that for setting
> itp->it_value when it did not used to, making it look at first
> glance like you have created an uninitialized variable.
>
> Probably just something in the description of the change would be
> sufficient.

Fair enough.

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-04-12 21:49    [W:0.166 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site