Re: [PATCH] hrtimer, add expiry time overflow check inhrtimer_interrupt

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Wed Apr 24 2013 - 20:35:38 EST

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:05:03PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 03:42 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 04:34:26PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >>
> >>On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> >>>On 04/08/2013 05:47 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >>>>A simple check for an overflow can resolve this problem. Using KTIME_MAX
> >>>>instead of the overflow value will result in the hrtimer function being run,
> >>>>and the reprogramming of the timer after that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>Prarit: Should this be tagged for -stable?
> >>John,
> >>
> >>Yes, this should go to -stable. cc'd.
> >>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I am a bit surprised that this patch has not found its way into mainline yet,
> >as everyone seems to agree that it is a candidate for -stable.
> It just has to land upstream first, which is likely in the next week
> or so when the 3.10 merge window opens. I'd have thought it would be
> sooner but 3.9 is taking longer to close then I expected (and I
> didn't think it was urgent enough to drop in at the last minute
> before the 3.9 release was made).
Guess I am a bit lost in process.

If this is going to be in -stable, it will presumably end up in 3.9.x as well as
in earlier releases. So why wasn't it pushed into 3.9-rcX to start with ?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at