Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 12/33] timers: dma-buf: Use timer_shutdown_sync() before freeing timer

[Christian König]

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