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:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 14/45] posix-timers: Consolidate interval retrieval
In-Reply-To: <ZJww66Svi84Bvw9Z@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20230606132949.068951363@linutronix.de>
 <20230606142031.816970056@linutronix.de>
 <ZJww66Svi84Bvw9Z@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:47:30 +0200
Message-ID: <87ttuq14xp.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 28 2023 at 15:08, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> Le Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 04:37:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner a =C3=A9crit :
>> There is no point to collect the current interval in the posix clock
>> specific settime() and gettime() callbacks. Just do it right in the comm=
on
>> code.
>>=20
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>
> The only difference I see is that we now return the old interval
> even if the target is reaped, which probably doesn't matter anyway.

But we don't return it to user space because ret !=3D 0 in that case.