Re: [patch V2 03/10] timers: Rework idle logic

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 01:11:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Storing next event and determining whether the base is idle can be done in
> __next_timer_interrupt(). 
> 
> Preparatory patch for new call sites which need this information as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/time/timer.c |   43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1358,8 +1358,11 @@ static int next_pending_bucket(struct ti
>  /*
>   * Search the first expiring timer in the various clock levels. Caller must
>   * hold base->lock.
> + *
> + * Stores the next expiry time in base. The return value indicates whether
> + * the base is empty or not.
>   */
> -static unsigned long __next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)
> +static bool __next_timer_interrupt(struct timer_base *base)

Can't say I'm a fan of this.. I sort of see where this is going, but the
fact remains that __next_timer_interrupt(), as a function, makes me
expect a return value of time/timer quantity.