On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 02:07:48PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Peter,
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:09:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > You might argue that in case of an explicit pinned timer, the above logic
> > > is wrong when the timer is m
Peter,
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:09:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > You might argue that in case of an explicit pinned timer, the above logic
> > is wrong when the timer is modified as it might move to a different
> > CPU. But from day one when the pi
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:09:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Peter,
Hi, Thomas,
Thanks for replying.
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> > get_target_base() in the timer code is not using the "base" parameter
> > at all. My gut feeling is that instead of removing that extra
> >
Peter,
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Peter Xu wrote:
> get_target_base() in the timer code is not using the "base" parameter
> at all. My gut feeling is that instead of removing that extra
> parameter, what we really want to do is "return the old base if it
> does not suite for a new one".
Gut feelings a
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:29:44PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> get_target_base() in the timer code is not using the "base" parameter
> at all. My gut feeling is that instead of removing that extra
> parameter, what we really want to do is "return the old base if it
> does not suite for a new one".
P
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 12:28:08PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:29:44PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > get_target_base() in the timer code is not using the "base" parameter
> > at all. My gut feeling is that instead of removing that extra
> > parameter, what we really wan
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:29:44PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> get_target_base() in the timer code is not using the "base" parameter
> at all. My gut feeling is that instead of removing that extra
> parameter, what we really want to do is "return the old base if it
> does not suite for a new one".
H
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:29:44PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> get_target_base() in the timer code is not using the "base" parameter
> at all. My gut feeling is that instead of removing that extra
> parameter, what we really want to do is "return the old base if it
> does not suite for a new one".
I
get_target_base() in the timer code is not using the "base" parameter
at all. My gut feeling is that instead of removing that extra
parameter, what we really want to do is "return the old base if it
does not suite for a new one".
CC: Thomas Gleixner
CC: John Stultz
CC: Stephen Boyd
CC: Luiz Ca
9 matches
Mail list logo