On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:50:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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 <t...@linutronix.de> > > --- > > 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.
Maybe we can just do a rename like fetch_next_timer_interrupt() or update_next_timer_interrupt()?
