On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:05:29PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 08:16:09AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to >> >> all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer() >> >> to pass the timer pointer explicitly. >> >> >> >> Cc: Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx> >> >> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Do you expect drm folks to apply this, or is this part of a larger refactoring? >> >> If the drm tree includes -rc3, you can carry these. If you don't want >> to carry these and want the timer tree to carry them, we can do that >> too. > > Applied to drm-misc-next for 4.16 (we're way past freeze for 4.15 > already). Since this is one of the few remaining "non-trivial" users of the ancient init_timer() API, would you mind if the timers tree carried this for 4.15? I'm trying to entirely remove the init_timer() API (and if I can, remove the old setup_*timer() API too). Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
