Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-155811-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@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: <87le5djng7.fsf@somnus>
References: <87le5djng7.fsf@somnus>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 21:38:00 +0200
Message-ID: <87v847uaxz.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, Apr 16 2024 at 18:12, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> 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?

No. If it_value = 0 then the timer is disarmed, so it_interval is
irrelevant and just should be 0 for sanity sake.