Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/5] qemu_next_alarm_deadline: check the expire time of a clock only if it is enabled

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 01/27/2012 01:26 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > Also delta in qemu_next_alarm_deadline is a 64 bit value so set the
> > > default to INT64_MAX instead of INT32_MAX.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini<stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   qemu-timer.c |   10 ++++------
> > >   1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/qemu-timer.c b/qemu-timer.c
> > > index cd026c6..648db1d 100644
> > > --- a/qemu-timer.c
> > > +++ b/qemu-timer.c
> > > @@ -106,23 +106,21 @@ static inline int alarm_has_dynticks(struct 
> > > qemu_alarm_timer *t)
> > >
> > >   static int64_t qemu_next_alarm_deadline(void)
> > >   {
> > > -    int64_t delta;
> > > +    int64_t delta = INT64_MAX;
> > 
> > I'm worried of overflows elsewhere...
> 
> I think that you are right: mm_rearm_timer and win32_rearm_timer would
> overflow.
> I'll just repost the patch using INT32_MAX.
 
Actually it is better to fix mm_rearm_timer and win32_rearm_timer so
that they won't overflow anymore.
I'll add a patch to do that.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel