On Tue, Apr 13 2021 at 21:35, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> +static int inject_delay_freq;
> +module_param(inject_delay_freq, int, 0644);
> +static int inject_delay_run = 1;
> +module_param(inject_delay_run, int, 0644);
int? Can't we just make them 'unsigned int'? Negative values are not
that useful.
> +static int max_read_retries = 3;
> +module_param(max_read_retries, int, 0644);
max_read_retries is unused here. Should be in the patch which actually
uses it.
> +static void clocksource_watchdog_inject_delay(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> + static int injectfail = -1;
> +
> + if (inject_delay_freq <= 0 || inject_delay_run <= 0)
> + return;
> + if (injectfail < 0 || injectfail > INT_MAX / 2)
> + injectfail = inject_delay_run;
> + if (!(++injectfail / inject_delay_run % inject_delay_freq)) {
Operator precedence based cleverness is really easy to parse - NOT!
> + pr_warn("%s(): Injecting delay.\n", __func__);
> + for (i = 0; i < 2 * WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD / NSEC_PER_MSEC; i++)
> + udelay(1000);
> + pr_warn("%s(): Done injecting delay.\n", __func__);
> + }
> +
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(injectfail < 0);
> +}
Brain melt stage reached by now.
static unsigned int invocations, injections;
if (!inject_delay_period || !inject_delay_repeat)
return;
if (!(invocations % inject_delay_period)) {
mdelay(2 * WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD / NSEC_PER_MSEC);
if (++injections < inject_delay_repeat)
return;
injections = 0;
}
invocations++;
}
Hmm?
Thanks,
tglx
