On 22.01.2026 10:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:39:30PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> When this was added, the log message was updated correctly, but the zero
>> case was needlessly checked separately: hpet_broadcast_enter() had a zero
>> check added at the same time, while handle_hpet_broadcast() can't possibly
>> pass 0 here anyway.
>>
>> Fixes: 7145897cfb81 ("cpuidle: Fix for timer_deadline==0 case")
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>
Thanks.
> Similar to the previous commit, I wonder whether it would make sense
> to add an ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() if that error path is not reachable
> given the logic in the callers.
That would mean
if ( unlikely(expire < 0) )
{
printk(KERN_DEBUG "reprogram: expire <= 0\n");
return -ETIME;
}
if ( unlikely(expire == 0) )
{
ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
return -ETIME;
}
which I fear I don't like (for going too far). Even
if ( unlikely(expire <= 0) )
{
printk(KERN_DEBUG "reprogram: expire <= 0\n");
ASSERT(expire);
return -ETIME;
}
I'd be uncertain about, as that needlessly gives 0 a meaning that isn't
required anymore in this function.
Jan
