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 E5F1015B56E for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:30:08 +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=1722882614; cv=none; b=qRN2OxUSbw6jQnG3i4ZKYZIOVBeenyZIustP/Mdph7k9aXE3Hj15uWegxa8PrsMkGMzir3j/SLrQ/2hLLzXYAcnhgUJqQYsqNYqc1oWO/KK+3l1P+yGLk4l4aP5rbpFDTKcdhaw4iWkKOxoA2/Jz4dPhaEeMb0CyTON0T3FvnlM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722882614; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NrU2SDbKbXUb/ATIe1QlAPBGvchHxO1RsIZlMCmshIc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ceBqC9uvJ53Tsi0+gwtpBackhiRxIu8zuhDxvAuRIrvhBWNnzr5tDfgoWNOo04ne6X7rmOHKUr8vnBZSR6jEpclP9y3kHdFKlyRqaec2/q1bHdREE7iDsR0No37kYYdN4PTiEVSpoZhfwUNFvgYGUvAscp/68o+Sx5ukCafRyOQ= 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=IBzWdopb; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=AXfW3HAD; 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="IBzWdopb"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="AXfW3HAD" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1722882607; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IP1J5S0LSf8H5luAMPVVcaxUVN84MC/2Vx5Wexj5lQ0=; b=IBzWdopbkAobSW5j6KDqdsL9NcecSPD62RwLNdesymhEK+bn2wnTNrlYpchcv6XETexNdV BV27ivthM7yOND2Q3MDM9mP8ADagwo5I1pkHqxOBZBOhqC6RXeYGqe1oYU39YYvi1YcHzH mHiliu3Loh8p6U4YK7ON7JyoRQTRB5+eUnkh7zSyyaiM0/TaGfi6BeWZTNXLphg165wrOa XfG8pvoCuPjS5aHTFoFGuosPHGS7BT472qNGO47O6U1+rSqgS9w6XdvvrcJ4XhiDaIFzm1 lFOGXNxvV1xJTkmWdCFmCoLn3qfMoc1F1cOE/BtWCbebnq4FKWVZSeI9Ec1z9g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1722882607; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IP1J5S0LSf8H5luAMPVVcaxUVN84MC/2Vx5Wexj5lQ0=; b=AXfW3HAD/VzwMv+z2NTl/H4Fwq/SE/80UvZRFumZt7DI87x1abbWOXkkrs8oF1xfUvmNKC CyTW9t8vzsvCsjCQ== To: John Stultz Cc: LKML , Stephen Boyd , Anna-Maria Behnsen , Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Fix bogus clock_was_set() invocation in do_adjtimex() In-Reply-To: References: <877ccx7igo.ffs@tglx> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 20:30:06 +0200 Message-ID: <874j7y6cwh.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 05 2024 at 10:50, John Stultz wrote: > On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 8:07=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> >> The addition of the bases argument to clock_was_set() fixed up all call >> sites correctly except for do_adjtimex(). This uses CLOCK_REALTIME >> instead of CLOCK_SET_WALL as argument. CLOCK_REALTIME is 0. >> >> As a result the effect of that clock_was_set() notification is incomplete >> and might result in timers expiring late because the hrtimer code does >> not re-evaluate the affected clock bases. >> >> Use CLOCK_SET_WALL instead of CLOCK_REALTIME to tell the hrtimers code >> which clock bases need to be re-evaluated. > > Acked-by: John Stultz > > My only thought here is maybe renaming CLOCK_SET_WALL and > CLOCK_SET_BOOT to something like: > BASEMASK_WALL_CLOCK_SET and BASEMASK_BOOT_CLOCK_SET > > Just to avoid future naming mixups or confusion with clockids? Makes sense. Care to whip up a patch? Thanks, tglx