On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2024-11-18 10:18:49, Easwar Hariharan wrote: > > On 11/18/2024 3:06 AM, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Sat 2024-11-16 11:10:52, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Le 15/11/2024 à 22:26, Easwar Hariharan a écrit : > > >>> [Vous ne recevez pas souvent de courriers de eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Découvrez pourquoi ceci est important à https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > >>> > > >>> Changes made with the following Coccinelle rules: > > >>> > > >>> @@ constant C; @@ > > >>> > > >>> - msecs_to_jiffies(C * 1000) > > >>> + secs_to_jiffies(C) > > >>> > > >>> @@ constant C; @@ > > >>> > > >>> - msecs_to_jiffies(C * MSEC_PER_SEC) > > >>> + secs_to_jiffies(C) > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Easwar Hariharan <eahariha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> --- > > >>> samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-busymod.c | 2 +- > > >>> samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-fix1.c | 2 +- > > >>> samples/livepatch/livepatch-shadow-mod.c | 10 +++++----- > > >>> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-busymod.c b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-busymod.c > > >>> index 378e2d40271a9717d09eff51d3d3612c679736fc..d0fd801a7c21b7d7939c29d83f9d993badcc9aba 100644 > > >>> --- a/samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-busymod.c > > >>> +++ b/samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-busymod.c > > >>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static int livepatch_callbacks_mod_init(void) > > >>> { > > >>> pr_info("%s\n", __func__); > > >>> schedule_delayed_work(&work, > > >>> - msecs_to_jiffies(1000 * 0)); > > >>> + secs_to_jiffies(0)); > > >> > > >> Using secs_to_jiffies() is pointless, 0 is universal, should become > > >> schedule_delayed_work(&work, 0); > > > > > > Yes, schedule_delayed_work(&work, 0) looks like the right solution. > > > > > > Or even better, it seems that the delayed work might get replaced by > > > a normal workqueue work. > > > > > > Anyway, I am working on a patchset which would remove this sample > > > module. There is no need to put much effort into the clean up > > > of this particular module. Do whatever is easiest for you. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Petr > > > > If we're removing the module, I'll drop it from the series. Just to > > clarify, do you mean to remove all of samples/livepatch/* or some > > particular file(s)? > > To be precise, I am going to replace: > > samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.c > samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-mod.c > samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-busymod.c > > with a completely different modules because I am reworking the > callbacks API. > > All other sample modules are going to stay. > > Feel free to remove livepatch-callbacks-busymod.c from the patchset. > But also feel free to keep it. The API rework goes slowly. I am not > sure if it would be ready for 6.14. I would propose that Easwar goes on with his work and prepares an updated version of the patch based on Christophe's feedback. That is, disregarding Petr's rework for now. The patch set has a higher chance to be merged sooner. Petr can then easily rebase. If there is a conflict, we will handle it as usual. What do you think? Miroslav
