On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:44:32PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> In the next changes, we track when the interrupts occur in order to
> statistically compute when is supposed to happen the next interrupt.
>
> In all the interruptions, it does not make sense to store the timer interrupt
> occurence
On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Whilst I think this is a good idea, the code in question actually results
> in undefined behaviour per the C spec and is reported by UBSAN.
Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
sent a long time ago to fix that up too.
