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
