On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 11:28:00AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 16:41 -0800, paul...@kernel.org wrote: > > > > @@ -203,7 +204,6 @@ static void > > clocksource_watchdog_inject_delay(void) > > injectfail = inject_delay_run; > > if (!(++injectfail / inject_delay_run % inject_delay_freq)) { > > printk("%s(): Injecting delay.\n", __func__); > > - injectfail = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < 2 * WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD / NSEC_PER_MSEC; > > i++) > > udelay(1000); > > Wait, patch 1 just added that line? > > Should patch 1 not add it and this > patch go without > this removal? :)
Good catch, will fix. ;-) > + wdagain_nsec = clocksource_cyc2ns(delta, watchdog- > >mult, watchdog->shift); > + if (wdagain_nsec < 0 || wdagain_nsec > > WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW) { > + wderr_nsec = wdagain_nsec; > + if (nretries++ < max_read_retries) > + goto retry; > + } > > Given that clocksource_cyc2ns uses unsigned multiplication > followed by a right shift, do we need to test for <0? I am worried about the possibility of the "shift" argument to clocksource_cyc2ns() being zero. For example, unless I am missing something, clocksource_tsc has a zero .shift field. Thanx, Paul