Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147209-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: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: 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>, Eric Biederman
 <ebiederm@xmission.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 20/50] posix-timers: Consolidate timer setup
In-Reply-To: <20240410165552.194398633@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:12:56 +0200
Message-ID: <87le5djng7.fsf@somnus>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:

> hrtimer based and CPU timers have their own way to install the new interval
> and to reset overrun and signal handling related data.
>
> Create a helper function and do the same operation for all variants.
>
> This also makes the handling of the interval consistent. It's only stored
> when the timer is actually armed, i.e. timer->it_value != 0. Before that it
> was stored unconditionally for posix CPU timers and conditionally for the
> other posix timers.

Shouldn't we do this similar to the gettime() and set it_interval
unconditionally?

Thanks,

	Anna-Maria