Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1470225
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC v4 22/22] timekeeping: inform clockevents about freq adjustments |
| Date | 2016-08-25 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sa4Lo-2LX-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <s96YV-4v1-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <s96YW-4v1-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&clockevents_lock, flags);
> + list_for_each_entry(dev, &clockevent_devices, list) {
> + if (!(dev->features & CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT))
> + continue;
> +
> + mult_raw = dev->mult;
> + if (mult_raw != last_mult_raw) {
> + last_mult_raw = mult_raw;
> + last_mult_adjusted =
> + __clockevents_calc_adjust_freq(mult_raw,
> + mult_cs_mono,
> + mult_cs_raw);
What makes sure that the resulting shift/mult pair is still valid after this
adjustment? The non adjusted mult/shift pair might be right at the border of
potential overflows and the adjustment might just put it over the edge....
We need at least sanity checks here.
Thanks,
tglx
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC v4 22/22] timekeeping: inform clockevents about freq adjustments Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 01:40 +0200 Re: [RFC v4 22/22] timekeeping: inform clockevents about freq adjustments Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:50 +0200 Re: [RFC v4 22/22] timekeeping: inform clockevents about freq adjustments Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-08-25 17:10 +0200 Re: [RFC v4 22/22] timekeeping: inform clockevents about freq adjustments Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-08-25 17:30 +0200
csiph-web