Message ID | 20221115195802.415956561@linutronix.de |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | timers: Provide timer_shutdown[_sync]() | expand |
On Tue, Nov 15 2022 at 21:28, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > As Steven is short of cycles, I made some spare cycles available and > reworked the patch series to follow the new semantics and plugged the races > which were discovered during review. Any opinions on this pile or should I just declare it's perfect and queue it for 6.2? Thanks, tglx
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 16:15:00 +0100 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > As Steven is short of cycles, I made some spare cycles available and > > reworked the patch series to follow the new semantics and plugged the races > > which were discovered during review. > > Any opinions on this pile or should I just declare it's perfect and > queue it for 6.2? I have time cut out of today to go over it. Thanks Thomas, -- Steve
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 21:28:32 +0100 (CET) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > The patches have been split up into small pieces to make review easier and > I took the liberty to throw a bunch of overdue cleanups into the picture > instead of proliferating the existing state further. After applying all these patches, and then my updates to the rest of the kernel, as well as my update to the debug objects to require shutdown. It reported this was needed: -- Steve diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c index 0fbb71950ca2..3e84a2621913 100644 --- a/kernel/time/timer.c +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c @@ -2188,7 +2188,7 @@ signed long __sched schedule_timeout(signed long timeout) timer_setup_on_stack(&timer.timer, process_timeout, 0); __mod_timer(&timer.timer, expire, MOD_TIMER_NOTPENDING); schedule(); - del_timer_sync(&timer.timer); + timer_shutdown_sync(&timer.timer); /* Remove the timer from the object tracker */ destroy_timer_on_stack(&timer.timer);