On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ctx->might_cancel and ctx->clist are always in sync with the new lock and > > that's the only interesting thing. On destruction we don't look at clockid > > or such, we only care about might_cancel. > > > > What is not guaranteed to be in sync is the timer expiry time and the > > cancel stuff, if two threads operate on the same timerfd in > > parallel. That's what I do not care about at all. > > Ack. Thanks for looking at it bearing with me. Then: Thanks for asking the questions. It's always good if we need to think it over again. Thanks, tglx
