Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     Victor Hassan <victor@allwinnertech.com>, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, jindong.yue@nxp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tick/broadcast: Do not set oneshot_mask except
 was_periodic was true
In-Reply-To: <ZFLftU4sEgeEaRJe@lothringen>
References: <20230412003425.11323-1-victor@allwinnertech.com>
 <87sfd0yi4g.ffs@tglx> <ZD/uWdz7dKLKlUqH@localhost.localdomain>
 <87jzy42a74.ffs@tglx> <ZFDxph8YDPjwvbej@lothringen> <87y1m652n2.ffs@tglx>
 <ZFLftU4sEgeEaRJe@lothringen>
Date:   Thu, 04 May 2023 00:53:52 +0200
Message-ID: <87pm7h3u2n.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 04 2023 at 00:27, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> On Tue, May 02, 2023 at 02:38:57PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Updated patch below.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>
> Looks good from my layperson's eyes, just a doubt about a comment below:
>
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * When switching from periodic to oneshot mode arm the broadcast
>> +	 * device for the next tick.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * If the broadcast device has been replaced in oneshot mode and
>> +	 * the oneshot broadcast mask is not empty, then arm it to expire
>> +	 * immediately in order to reevaluate the next expiring timer.
>> +	 * nexttick is 0 and therefore in the past which will cause the
>
> Is nexttick really in the past? It's set to tick_next_period...

Only in the non-replacement, i.e. the 'from_periodic' codepath, no?

Thanks,

        tglx