[PATCH v2 14/25] timekeeping: Introduce combined timekeeping action flag

Anna-Maria Behnsen posted 25 patches 1 month, 2 weeks ago
[PATCH v2 14/25] timekeeping: Introduce combined timekeeping action flag
Posted by Anna-Maria Behnsen 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Instead of explicitly listing all the separate timekeeping actions flags,
introduce a new one which covers all actions except TK_MIRROR action.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
---
 kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
index fcb2b8b232d2..5a747afe64b4 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
 #define TK_MIRROR		(1 << 1)
 #define TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET	(1 << 2)
 
+#define TK_UPDATE_ALL		(TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET)
+
 enum timekeeping_adv_mode {
 	/* Update timekeeper when a tick has passed */
 	TK_ADV_TICK,
@@ -1493,7 +1495,7 @@ int do_settimeofday64(const struct timespec64 *ts)
 
 	tk_set_xtime(tk, ts);
 out:
-	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_MIRROR | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET);
+	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_UPDATE_ALL | TK_MIRROR);
 
 	write_seqcount_end(&tk_core.seq);
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tk_core.lock, flags);
@@ -1543,7 +1545,7 @@ static int timekeeping_inject_offset(const struct timespec64 *ts)
 	tk_set_wall_to_mono(tk, timespec64_sub(tk->wall_to_monotonic, *ts));
 
 error: /* even if we error out, we forwarded the time, so call update */
-	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_MIRROR | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET);
+	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_UPDATE_ALL | TK_MIRROR);
 
 	write_seqcount_end(&tk_core.seq);
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tk_core.lock, flags);
@@ -1628,7 +1630,7 @@ static int change_clocksource(void *data)
 	timekeeping_forward_now(tk);
 	old = tk->tkr_mono.clock;
 	tk_setup_internals(tk, new);
-	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_MIRROR | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET);
+	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_UPDATE_ALL | TK_MIRROR);
 
 	write_seqcount_end(&tk_core.seq);
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tk_core.lock, flags);
@@ -1919,7 +1921,7 @@ void timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64(const struct timespec64 *delta)
 
 	__timekeeping_inject_sleeptime(tk, delta);
 
-	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_MIRROR | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET);
+	timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_UPDATE_ALL | TK_MIRROR);
 
 	write_seqcount_end(&tk_core.seq);
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tk_core.lock, flags);

-- 
2.39.5
Re: [PATCH v2 14/25] timekeeping: Introduce combined timekeeping action flag
Posted by John Stultz 1 month ago
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 1:29 AM Anna-Maria Behnsen
<anna-maria@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Instead of explicitly listing all the separate timekeeping actions flags,
> introduce a new one which covers all actions except TK_MIRROR action.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 10 ++++++----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> index fcb2b8b232d2..5a747afe64b4 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
>  #define TK_MIRROR              (1 << 1)
>  #define TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET       (1 << 2)
>
> +#define TK_UPDATE_ALL          (TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET)
> +

Hrm.  I feel a little wary around having a flag mask called _ALL when
it doesn't actually include all the other flags.
I also recognize the "TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET"  arguments can
feel repetitive, but I find having them explicitly listed makes the
code more readable to me.
Combining these common ones together just means there is a 4th option
one has to keep in their head to translate.

Further, as I look through the logic TK_MIRROR could probably be
improved by adding a direction (it's easy to mix up what is being
mirrored to what). Maybe TK_MIRROR_TO_SHADOW?

But these are mostly just strategies to help my scatterbrained state,
so this isn't a hard objection if you disagree.

thanks
-john