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>
 <CAHp75VdLoSDYvX6ZiRKJq0RRtz4nbkNwsjSFxbOsNeJofoUJVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VdLoSDYvX6ZiRKJq0RRtz4nbkNwsjSFxbOsNeJofoUJVw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:23:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGM2reZR9iwUoBynrBRbjJAZ1D5WqAKdSzc=xQPWstXs1nN-nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/7] x86/time: read_boot_clock64() implementation
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        john.stultz@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, x86@kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mingo@redhat.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, prarit@redhat.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > +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?

Hi Andy,

Sure, I will change to:
if (valid_clock)
...
else
...

>
> > > +               *ts = (struct timespec64){0, 0};
>
> I dunno if additional variable would be better for readability, like
>
> struct timespec64 null_ts = {0,0};

I don't mind adding ts_null, but I think, as-is ok here,

> ...
> *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.
>

Thank you for the review!

Pavel