On 2019-08-21 10:24:07 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote: > The update to timer->base is protected by the base->cpu_base->lock(). > However, hrtimer_grab_expirty_lock() does not access it with the lock. > > So it would theorically be possible to have timer->base changed under > our feet. We need to prevent the compiler to refetch timer->base so the > check and the access is performed on the same base. It is not a problem if the timer's bases changes. We get here because we want to help the timer to complete its callback. The base can only change if the timer gets re-armed on another CPU which means is completed callback. In every case we can cancel the timer on the next iteration. Sebastian
