Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180615174204.30581-1-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
 <20180615174204.30581-4-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> <CAHp75VdRxpSYJE17bjGvRAjCq5vjf23L=HT5oA6OhPSCzJJ0FA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:44:57 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdLoSDYvX6ZiRKJq0RRtz4nbkNwsjSFxbOsNeJofoUJVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/7] x86/time: read_boot_clock64() implementation
To:     Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Cc:     Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>, prarit@redhat.com,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:48 PM Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > read_boot_clock64() returns time of when system was started. Now, that
> > early boot clock is going to be available on x86 it is possible to
> > implement x86 specific version of read_boot_clock64() that takes advantage
> > of this new feature.
>

Oops, sorry for previous empty mail.

> > +void __init read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64 *now, struct timespec64 *ts)
> > +{
> > +       u64 ns_boot = sched_clock_cpu(smp_processor_id());
> > +       bool valid_clock;
> > +       u64 ns_now;
> > +
> > +       ns_now = timespec64_to_ns(now);
> > +       valid_clock = ns_boot && timespec64_valid_strict(now) &&
> > +                       (ns_now > ns_boot);
> > +
>


> > +       if (!valid_clock)

Are we expecting more often clock to be non-valid?
Perhaps change to positive conditional?

> > +               *ts = (struct timespec64){0, 0};

I dunno if additional variable would be better for readability, like

struct timespec64 null_ts = {0,0};
...
*ts = null_ts;

> > +       else
> > +               *ts = ns_to_timespec64(ns_now - ns_boot);

But I'm fine as long as Thomas is okay with this code.

> > +}


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko