From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964988Ab3FTI1d (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:27:33 -0400 Received: from intranet.asianux.com ([58.214.24.6]:57954 "EHLO intranet.asianux.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754841Ab3FTI1T (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:27:19 -0400 X-Spam-Score: -100.8 Message-ID: <51C2BCB3.4060603@asianux.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:26:27 +0800 From: Chen Gang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: timer: looping issue, need reset variable 'found' References: <51B4A408.4050909@asianux.com> <51C039A8.5000903@asianux.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/20/2013 03:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote: >> > On 06/10/2013 10:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > I think we can treat original implementation as for speed optimization, >> > so our discussion is "whether this speed optimization has effect with >> > correctness". > Then I recommend that you to sit down and analyze the correctness of > the code. That is only your recommend, not mean I have duty to. > > Come back when you have a proof of the code being wrong. And by proof > I mean factual proof not just handwaving theories. At least before say so, please reply: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we assume "If there is nothing in tv2 which might come before the found timer, then any timer in tv3 will ..." is correct. When we found a timer in 'tv1', we will not search all timers in 'tv2' (we only search first looping of tv2 for the specific 'slot'). Is it still OK ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do not want to discuss with others, better quite politely, not need judging or checking others, it is useless for the cooperation with each other, is it right ? ;-) Thanks. -- Chen Gang Asianux Corporation