Re: [patch 01/12] clockevents: Prevent timer interrupt starvation

Thomas Gleixner
2026-04-07T13:59:37Z

On Tue, Apr 07 2026 at 13:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 01:30:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > The only thing that seems to be different, is that the old code would
>> > return the ->set_next_event() error code, rather than 0 in the !force
>> > case.
>>
>> You mean when dev->next_event_forced is set and the set_event() callback
>> above failed?
>
> next_event_foced = 0;
> force = 0;
>
> Then the old code would return rc (return value of ->set_next_event),
> while the new code will return -ETIME.
>
> (not 0 like I said).

Ah. Now it makes sense :)

> I suppose ->set_next_event() will only ever fail with -ETIME?

Yes.