Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-143271-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Anna-Maria Behnsen
 <anna-maria@linutronix.de>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
 John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Oleg
 Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 07/50] posix-cpu-timers: Split up posix_cpu_timer_get()
In-Reply-To: <87mspyxwua.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
References: <20240410164558.316665885@linutronix.de>
 <20240410165551.376994018@linutronix.de>
 <87mspyxwua.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:48:23 +0200
Message-ID: <87jzl2z7js.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Fri, Apr 12 2024 at 13:25, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
>> In preparation for addressing issues in the timer_get() and timer_set()
>> functions of posix CPU timers.
>
> To see that this was safe I had to lookup and see that
> cpu_timer_getexpires is a truly trivial function.
>
> static inline u64 cpu_timer_getexpires(struct cpu_timer *ctmr)
> {
> 	return ctmr->node.expires;
> }
>
> I am a bit confused by the purpose of this function in
> posix-cpu-timers.c.

I added that back then when I converted the code over to use a
timerqueue instead of a linked list mostly because I did not want to
fiddle in the inwars of timerqueue.

> In some places this helper is used (like below), and in other places
> like bump_cpu_timer the expires member is accessed directly.
>
> It isn't really a problem, but it is something that might be
> worth making consistent in the code to make it easier to read.

Yes, that's definitely inconsistent. I'll have a look.

Thanks,

        tglx