Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] timekeeping: Fix draft tracking precision and add feed-forward discipline via vmclock

Next message: Dmitry Baryshkov: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] crypto: Delete Qualcomm crypto engine driver"
Previous message: Eva Kurchatova: "[PATCH 0/2] selftests/clone3: fix cap_checkpoint_restore test"
In reply to: Thomas Gleixner: "Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] timekeeping: Fix draft tracking precision and add feed-forward discipline via vmclock"
Next in thread: Miroslav Lichvar: "Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/8] timekeeping: Fix draft tracking precision and add feed-forward discipline via vmclock"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

From: David Woodhouse

Date: Sun May 24 2026 - 12:42:54 EST

On 24 May 2026 17:36:04 BST, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sun, May 24 2026 at 17:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Sun, May 24 2026 at 17:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> There is an existing bug in that code for the retry case. Fix below.
>
>There is none. It's just too hot to think straight. The counterval is
>updated once per retry ....
>
>
>

Yeah, and setting the csid in it at the same time as changing the actual cycle count seemed to make a lot of sense to me.

I didn't even ask the AI friend about that; it's entirely crap at anything where you have to take the blinkers off. But it *can* type fast and do test iterations, so it has its place as long as you know you can't trust anything it says :)