From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965207Ab3FTJNp (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:13:45 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:59857 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965135Ab3FTJNl (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jun 2013 05:13:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:13:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Chen Gang cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: timer: looping issue, need reset variable 'found' In-Reply-To: <51C2BCB3.4060603@asianux.com> Message-ID: References: <51B4A408.4050909@asianux.com> <51C039A8.5000903@asianux.com> <51C2BCB3.4060603@asianux.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote: > On 06/20/2013 03:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > If we assume "If there is nothing in tv2 which might come before the > found timer, then any timer in tv3 will ..." is correct. > > When we found a timer in 'tv1', we will not search all timers in 'tv2' > (we only search first looping of tv2 for the specific 'slot'). Yes, because that's how the timer wheel works. And I'm not going to explain you every little detail of it. > Is it still OK ? Yes, it is. > If you do not want to discuss with others, better quite politely, not > need judging or checking others, it is useless for the cooperation with > each other, is it right ? ;-) I discussed all your patches which fall into my area of responsibility with you and I explained to you very politely why your patches are incorrect. When I noticed, that you do not even understand how the timer wheel works in detail, which is necessary to understand why the code in __next_timer_interrupt() is correct, I asked you politely: > > Then I recommend that you to sit down and analyze the correctness of > > the code. And you answered: > That is only your recommend, not mean I have duty to. Right, it's only a recommendation. Though without proof of a failure, I'm not going to discuss that further and I'm not going to apply a patch. Thanks, tglx