On 22.01.2026 10:03, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> 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]>
Thanks.
>> --- 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);
Hmm, yes, can do.
Jan
