On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 08:15:53 +0100 Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > index fb6e0a6ae2c9..5d3e7b503501 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence.c > > @@ -412,7 +412,7 @@ static int test_wait_timeout(void *arg) > > > > err = 0; > > err_free: > > - del_timer_sync(&wt.timer); > > + timer_shutdown_sync(&wt.timer); > > Mhm, what exactly is the benefit of renaming the function? > > Not that I'm against the change, but my thinking is more if there are > more functions which don't re-arm the time than those which do that then > why not forbid it in general? Timers are more often re-armed then not. I had to look for the locations where del_timer*() was called just before freeing, and other locations where they are freed later. I didn't rename del_timer_sync() to timer_shutdown_sync(), this version renamed the new "del_timer_shutdown()" to "timer_shutdown_sync()". Maybe I'm just confused at what you are asking. -- Steve
