From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm/vblank: timer: Verify that expiry time is in the future Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 14:03:59 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260601141922.91498-7-tzimmermann@suse.de> References: <20260601141922.91498-1-tzimmermann@suse.de> <20260601141922.91498-7-tzimmermann@suse.de> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Good fix.** The original `!ktime_compare()` only catches the `expiry == cur_time` case. `!ktime_after()` correctly catches `expiry <= cur_time`: ```c - if (drm_WARN_ON(dev, !ktime_compare(*vblank_time, cur_time))) + if (drm_WARN_ON(dev, !ktime_after(*vblank_time, cur_time))) ``` This is a clear improvement. If the timer expiry is somehow behind the current vblank time, it should be treated as expired. **However**, after Patch 3's clock domain change, `*vblank_time` is `CLOCK_BOOTTIME` and `cur_time` is `CLOCK_MONOTONIC`. This comparison is fundamentally broken regardless of `ktime_compare` vs `ktime_after`. Fixing the clock domain issue in Patch 3 would make this patch correct. --- --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer