On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:39:03PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Neither caller passes STIME_MAX, so (bogusly) handling the case isn't
> necessary.
>
> "Bogusly" because with 32-bit counters, writing 0 means on average half
> the wrapping period until an interrupt would be raised, while of course
> in extreme cases an interrupt would be raised almost right away.
>
> Amends: aa42fc0e9cd9 ("cpuidle: remove hpet access in hpet_broadcast_exit")
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>
> ---
> v3: Drop the code instead of adjusting it.
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hpet.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hpet.c
> @@ -162,13 +162,6 @@ static int reprogram_hpet_evt_channel(
>
> ch->next_event = expire;
>
> - if ( expire == STIME_MAX )
> - {
> - /* We assume it will take a long time for the timer to wrap. */
> - hpet_write32(0, HPET_Tn_CMP(ch->idx));
> - return 0;
> - }
I wouldn't mind if you replaced this with an ASSERT(expire != STIME_MAX);
Thanks, Roger.
