Am 04.11.22 um 19:58 schrieb Steven Rostedt:
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.
No, that explains it a bit better. I was just wondering what exactly the
different to del_timer_sync() is.
Maybe shorten the summary in the cover letter a bit. The history how
this change came to be is not as interesting as why we are changing
something.
Regards,
Christian.
-- Steve
_______________________________________________
Linaro-mm-sig mailing list -- linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-mm-sig-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
