From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CDE52BDC28; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781789047; cv=none; b=W2EompqoJAvKc3tG+0yQTTNFp40Zr+2tbmE1BiFsEOjqwMsau7ZmJ3IK77L2YIL/3ZjJZ4B2ZBF5/gfeYjfsk4AlxgiAlnz9EUsbFw2b65C6SaDq2AUIWdGnNE4M/qRLqTtR/8JA0KPqgC0Mxp9z8jHs8i9eD/VJ8Tx0KacLCW0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781789047; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6b0wxlvLuBUC6cVgFXTa3EXfEIljcSpLEmdjpoRCQ+A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cepsaBqsDZbyGQXzWtY9AxaJ56Gp5t38SB6jDU7IQNro6Y7R3SvoFWKVlRegXf67Q0yQcriEu2qOT9FrXzEM4Osru/eSfU+klIiKO4VQrx9x5ilMwj63v3sGLtt4c491IgbF6ZwzwuymDmtFsHpgyzktpPtIfZAe4629F4oBS5s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=zSXrdP/Z; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=jvM8QL+B; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="zSXrdP/Z"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="jvM8QL+B" From: Nam Cao DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1781789044; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HIgUZaDPjftaCuMCI9RgucFIBdYvkJk/aGPMmH8L/8A=; b=zSXrdP/ZrZYjRnzMfxWYLGKvt+3hcpUnSTbO7q7uWPGYhn4uDaUixR6l4BpVSZh6e69gqK wxV4Mg4As7LXxdeuvKiKCv6xn/4Zku7UJ8IommF7MfgnNcaFfFCdDBu5AcE5qu0YPn0OzY lIzjUn6jcdufG9XC8AwHsEqSTLdWX6IY30HLQXO3ixEz+3FxQxc09Io0Bf4sMkOQGUicyZ AQ6rnM13kp63Prd5dRqe5pVxwClBBVURUDHJyToLuVE8OyE8tMpQaHKD8kl2zXm805wusY hy8Vn5W0/+Ac2SQtkqKwJ300QdmTo6eG2sIDvCKtSM8CYj8yDl6HrWfG87lEUQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1781789044; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=HIgUZaDPjftaCuMCI9RgucFIBdYvkJk/aGPMmH8L/8A=; b=jvM8QL+Bfxj7FrBaDx/3P0JsfytM6OWIGJo1KbdTzMc4sQa1/zeihjAqKAKJUN8LEzCj+C S71Y9KrPUlI2BrAQ== To: Gabriele Monaco Cc: Steven Rostedt , Wander Lairson Costa , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/13] verification/rvgen: Delete __parse_constraint() In-Reply-To: <9035cc5b83dda3a8ec06e8488fba62ceb7431123.camel@redhat.com> References: <8d9b9068a5dde8256edd7debe7aab33e15a7fc51.1780908661.git.namcao@linutronix.de> <87tsr1mqrj.fsf@yellow.woof> <9035cc5b83dda3a8ec06e8488fba62ceb7431123.camel@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 15:24:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87fr2kdlsc.fsf@yellow.woof> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Gabriele Monaco writes: > Yeah, I don't see it explicitly mandated in the theory, but the > description (from the sources) states: > > The value of a clock thus denotes the amount of time that has been > elapsed since its last reset > > But it also says (emphasis added by me): > > Clocks /can/ be reset to zero after which they start increasing ... > > Nowhere it says clocks /must/ be reset, their value simply won't make > sense (according to the definition). > > Now in our implementation we may have some automatic reset when the > monitor starts (I'm planning that to avoid invalid states), which could > make explicit resets superfluous in some cases. Reseting the clocks on monitor start sounds sensible. > Let's leave that to the user for now and skip this check. Thanks, Nam