On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> >> >> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote: >> >>> The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which >> >>> converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus >> >>> core. >> >> >> >> Actually I wasn't clear if you wanted to to that yourself aswell as the >> >> rest if it. >> >> >> >> But sure I can do that conversion, it's on my list. >> > >> > IIRC it was basically done. Just some odd locking that could now also be >> > removed. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Johan >> > >> >> I think once Kees' change is applied to operation.c and we convert the >> async stuff to operation.c's callbacks there ought to be no use of >> timers, linked lists of operations. > > That's correct. > >> I'll probably need at least a day to look at that, so it'll be the >> weekend before I can really allocate time. > > Cool. I'm quite sure I just rebased your loopback conversion patch on my > core timeout handling and used that to test the core implementation, so > it should be straight forward. Hi, I seem to have lost the thread of conversation a bit. What exactly remains that I should be doing here for timer conversions? (It sounded like it was already partially handled already?) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|