Re: [PATCH] fix unsafe operation in high resolution timer

[Hillf Danton]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 10:19:11PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
>> > But for a hrtimer which is not free in its callback, like a
>> > static defined one. the hrtimer could be referenced at the same
>> > time. So here you cann't just delete the two lines.
>>
>> After callback, as you agree, it is hard to determine in the current
>> implementation if the hrtimer is static defined, though another bit
>> could be added, say, in the flag word of hrtimer
>
> Yeah, that is an option, like a flag FREE_IN_CALLBACK/ONESHOT which
> indicate that. Or just let the callback return another value like

The result of callback sounds fine.
Hillf

> HRTIMER_FREED. But as I said before I'm not sure what's the best way
> to fix that. And maybe there's more suitable method.
>
> BTW, is there any user who free the hrtimer in its callback?
>
>> , so cutting the two
>> lines off is deserved.
>> And more, who will take care of the NORESTART again after callback?
>
> It's not related to NORESTART, just HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK.
> hrtimer'strategy somehow depends on HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK.
> You can take a look at the caller of hrtimer_callback_running().
>
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/