From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933681Ab1KCNKq (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:10:46 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:59482 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933143Ab1KCNKp (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:10:45 -0400 Message-ID: <1320325819.2892.1.camel@js-netbook> Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: Avoid selecting mult values that might overflow when adjusted From: John Stultz To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , Yong Zhang , David Daney Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 09:10:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1320264087-3413-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.0- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 x-cbid: 11110313-3352-0000-0000-0000008B95D8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 13:05 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, John Stultz wrote: > > > > + WARN_ONCE(timekeeper.mult+adj > > > + timekeeper.clock->mult + timekeeper.clock->maxadj, > > + "Adjusting more then 11%%"); > > Shouldn't we rather limit the update instead of just warn and overflow ? Well, I'm hesitant to commit to that, just yet. So I figured I'd start with the warning. thanks -john