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 AE7A2335DB for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:02:30 +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=1712872952; cv=none; b=XVuGnztP1R2Xma7AMBLewmuqQlRj5vIzusVVimevi/FAj/UuqJJ/anp8RTEOFmAHCs6Jb21np2T/bZhzlzx+y9H66QWRN04NIlSuFUN2gVewGLVW4AaMWNJUITCTIxQxsUfPO0ztEvqYt3dp328d2xuJ6W5Ly+T7Qo9/S37igbo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712872952; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TCfpmkNbXZg9S1OkDm7bfoX9eNqr+D7wDqMO4QFGPj4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=rVqoTuADpv4ZuDsuboPrfKX0utBouCb0r2YqIx8hweAuhzezGrWntWHg5VArLycx+925Cb7YZNa9+Q5gFwJJRV3VP9mQdbsnfQde4O35KEOdeEZ7gxj8bjzr50KtkrrzmigHyCbPCrndld+RGhVczWns8nQoBwbdNw+EA7oCOn4= 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=kH3vamkr; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=sHxB9WKJ; 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="kH3vamkr"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="sHxB9WKJ" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1712872949; 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=hINm3VgQ/iC6NoqwrzPmAm3wluW8FRV5SPabfp2G4Gg=; b=kH3vamkrl06XlfoOKfM24LZgFpbciy1x6UL2uypn0k+Yq0bZxfqlSH+YQESS6gt0UlYqxl DJm+tZXQhFj31oRRpedNmux7RKAuLWehq5UZKaXYTyThx/kTSm3/7BqJGNt/IVYLjirIfb kN2zdMDYga7obVKmHPfWGLYMVQU1uemB0nw4dAAHfDffNSt/JOiFNbtUY994BMvkSGE4Il EC61fnfII6yl1+wtH7Zk0qVUR+SjHFYfBeLMxfvzRBUpBWOq4xCdMV+XUvWtyocjvqFcfU 3EuFnqxDetof3nSc7qygV1sxYzMApgOyMaY2OKrJUfUY8If6BsnX0Fo+16r0Ng== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1712872949; 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=hINm3VgQ/iC6NoqwrzPmAm3wluW8FRV5SPabfp2G4Gg=; b=sHxB9WKJKQ2xlGJZC354hn/1JFfYSX4YScgHtT+oeovXlRAO6oq5UkUNXnLrqwZ+mKMZ32 WPuaHPioqoL80JAw== To: Anna-Maria Behnsen , LKML Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , John Stultz , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Stephen Boyd , Eric Biederman , Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [patch V2 11/50] posix-cpu-timers: Handle SIGEV_NONE timers correctly in timer_set() In-Reply-To: <8734rrvr1p.fsf@somnus> References: <20240410164558.316665885@linutronix.de> <20240410165551.635345704@linutronix.de> <8734rrvr1p.fsf@somnus> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:02:28 +0200 Message-ID: <87zftzzhfv.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 On Thu, Apr 11 2024 at 17:48, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote: > Thomas Gleixner writes: > >> Expired SIGEV_NONE oneshot timers must return 0 nsec for the expiry time in >> timer_get(), but the posix CPU timer implementation returns 1 nsec. > > copy paste error (get/set) ? Yes. >> Add the missing conditional. >> >> This will be cleaned up in a follow up patch. > > I'm confused. Why do you want to cleanup the conditional in a follow up > patch? This patch is to fix the issue. The next one consolidates the code, but I can see why the "this will be ..." part of the changelog does not make sense. Thanks, tglx