Re: [patch V2 03/10] timers: Rework idle logic

Frederic Weisbecker
2017-04-21T14:43:59Z

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:50:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 01:11:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Storing next event and determining whether the base is idle can be done in
> > __next_timer_interrupt().
> >
> > Preparatory patch for new call sites which need this information as well.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > ---
> > kernel/time/timer.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> > @@ -1358,8 +1358,11 @@ static int next_pending_bucket(struct ti
> > /*
> > * Search the first expiring timer in the various clock levels. Caller must
> > * hold base->lock.
> > + *
> > + * Stores the next expiry time in base. The return value indicates whether
> > + * the base is empty or not.
> > */
> > -static unsigned long __next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)
> > +static bool __next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)
>
> Can't say I'm a fan of this.. I sort of see where this is going, but the
> fact remains that __next_timer_interrupt(), as a function, makes me
> expect a return value of time/timer quantity.

Maybe we can just do a rename like fetch_next_timer_interrupt() or
update_next_timer_interrupt()?