On 9 July 2014 12:07, Preeti U Murthy preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
My concern is around this comment itself. This function is not actually verifying if the timer was in the past. And such timers are taken care of in hrtimer_start* as you have pointed out.
So as we discussed offline, it would be good to mention in the changelog that currently in the kernel, this comment does not make sense for the above mentioned reason, in addition to saying that it will fail all the time in its find for a non-enqueued hrtimer.
I have added short note about the comment in the relevant patch.
Else the patch looks fine to me. I have added my reviewed by just in case Frederic intends to pick this up through his tree.
Reviewed-by: Preeti U Murthy preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Thanks, I haven't added this to the patch while sending it to LKML as there were some logs update.
Please give your Reviewed-by's for the entire series now :)