[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 6/8] x86/HPET: simplify "expire" check a little in reprogram_hpet_evt_channel()
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 10:18:59 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=LHgE5m6QECRx5+eJgIROoUPUitr4gYlcUJhTZpAIDDQ=; b=nEPCScuZ4susrIDoHioe76vWT6vsun7nbTQbAX0774adb1pwhV+gunK0hC6ocr/YYebJy3JdsXx0IeX/Sths/V1kBS/6j7eH5IeknzMnrJspOMY5H6xMw5EHR/xlo46pR7IT/HTqJ9E9y9kOMQGpxdWDAhB8GEI1xWuSJLqeOFA7QYA5Myj63IMZERBQDNYA7DP2cHM7K3KFVb+2OGDtN7YWKM5jXYRyYhinhawEK3QUj4dUJwM7yZITwr0UW039JzzduSdZ9YDdkIflGRDUETrDEO/ydBP47n2kBf1dyJFwqLq+j06SjMVegPE+Y1JerUxPyvcbhZZf5j+NMRjMXQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=IO97ZJ8vY+PS9cI5p5YslZ3v4zQDo4G4xbVguYsw1bAxGP/TFqoMkqA4GS6Ixr980olZFKAMYu006thiPZiV6ma63spjUjI3s8+WrB+JgGnfhSfWTFPi5I+tyNkTu9eZ9E/SDvk8zG3v/v/mD2ZhI+zsZr427/+8aQ4at7bIj49cmy6+uzgoIMhwf3PERhjjo4rSPsvs5Dg+MzIIrysU1MOjgMQGpSIVk1GhnU48AEXlisXg296kVLDPxSTe7odD7P12DGKI9QSSotKu1KDUlPFk13oh5asEr8X3V/2z/9n6YWhX5ARGa/iWOModsFsI5Ri4clYcGiK3xo8nGZ7E5g==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
- Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:19:18 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:39:30PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When this was added, the log message was updated correctly, but the zero
> case was needlessly checked separately: hpet_broadcast_enter() had a zero
> check added at the same time, while handle_hpet_broadcast() can't possibly
> pass 0 here anyway.
>
> Fixes: 7145897cfb81 ("cpuidle: Fix for timer_deadline==0 case")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
Similar to the previous commit, I wonder whether it would make sense
to add an ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() if that error path is not reachable
given the logic in the callers.
Thanks, Roger.
|
