On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:08:45PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:44:20AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 06:32:27PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > But would the following patch make sense? This would not help for (say) > > > > use of TICK_MASK_BIT_POSIX_TIMER instead of TICK_DEP_BIT_POSIX_TIMER, but > > > > would help for any new values that might be added later on. And currently > > > > for TICK_DEP_MASK_CLOCK_UNSTABLE and TICK_DEP_MASK_RCU. > > > > > > I'd rather make the TICK_DEP_MASK_* values private to kernel/time/tick-sched.c but > > > that means I need to re-arrange a bit include/trace/events/timer.h > > > > That would be even better! For one thing, it would detect misuse of > > -all- of the _MASK_ values. ;-) > > :o) > > > > > > I'm looking into it. Meanwhile, your below patch that checks for the max value is > > > still valuable. > > > > If I were to push it, it would be v5.5 before it showed up. My guess > > is therefore that I should keep it for my own internal use in the near > > term, but not push it. If you would like to take it, feel free to use > > my Signed-off-by. > > Ok, applying. Thank you, Frederic! Thanx, Paul
