Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 17:57:40 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] timer: Prevent base->clk from moving backward
Message-ID: <20200702155740.GJ9670@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20200701011030.14324-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20200701011030.14324-2-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20200701163504.GD9670@localhost.localdomain>
 <20200701232045.GA17670@lenoir>
 <20200702095959.GG9670@localhost.localdomain>
 <20200702143206.GC27417@lenoir>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200702143206.GC27417@lenoir>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02/07/20 16:32, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 11:59:59AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 02/07/20 01:20, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:35:04PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > Guess you might be faster to understand what I'm missing. :-)
> > > 
> > > So, did you port only this patch or the whole set in order to
> > > trigger this?
> > > 
> > > If it was the whole set, can you try this patch alone?
> > 
> > Whole set. And I can't reproduce if I try with this patch alone.
> > 
> 
> Missing initialization. This should go better after this:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
> index 25a55c043297..f36b53219768 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1969,6 +1969,7 @@ static void __init init_timer_cpu(int cpu)
>  		base->cpu = cpu;
>  		raw_spin_lock_init(&base->lock);
>  		base->clk = jiffies;
> +		base->next_expiry = base->clk + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
>  		timer_base_init_expiry_lock(base);
>  	}
>  }
> 

Yep. Looks like warning is gone.