From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56571)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <digetx@gmail.com>) id 1ZAdJs-0007Wb-6m
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:10:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <digetx@gmail.com>) id 1ZAdJm-0005nm-Ii
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:10:20 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::231]:36429)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <digetx@gmail.com>) id 1ZAdJm-0005mm-9j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:10:14 -0400
Received: by lagc2 with SMTP id c2so59721021lag.3
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 05:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55952A1D.2030806@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 15:10:05 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1435785330-7384-1-git-send-email-digetx@gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA_zE9UVS2L82-5Jhh_TKeWCQ8ms2KvFuZhhsfyk1PqJug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_zE9UVS2L82-5Jhh_TKeWCQ8ms2KvFuZhhsfyk1PqJug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] arm_mptimer: Fix timer shutdown
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Hello Peter, thanks a lot for comment.

02.07.2015 12:27, Peter Maydell пишет:
> Thanks; this does look like a bug. This change will mean we
> call timer_del() even if the timer was already disabled,
> though, so I think it would be slightly better to rearrange
> the existing logic something like this:
>
>    if ((old & 1) != (value & 1)) {
>       if (value & 1) {
>           if (tb->count == 0 && (tb->control & 2)) {
>               tb->count = tb->load;
>           }
>           timerblock_reload(tb, 1);
>       } else {
>           timer_del(tb->timer);
>       }
>    }
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>

Calling timer_del() twice is safe, but I agree that it would be better to avoid 
it. I'll send V2.

-- 
Dmitry