linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] 3c59x: Use setup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 28 Feb 2016 13:43:32 +0530
From:	Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com>
To:	Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] 3c59x: Use setup_timer()

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016, Amitoj Kaur Chawla wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, David Miller wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com>
>> >> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:28:19 +0530
>> >>
>> >>> Convert a call to init_timer and accompanying intializations of
>> >>> the timer's data and function fields to a call to setup_timer.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Coccinelle semantic patch that fixes this problem is
>> >>> as follows:
>> >>>
>> >>> // <smpl>
>> >>> @@
>> >>> expression t,f,d;
>> >>> @@
>> >>>
>> >>> -init_timer(&t);
>> >>> +setup_timer(&t,f,d);
>> >>>  ...
>> >>> -t.data = d;
>> >>> -t.function = f;
>> >>> // </smpl>
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Applied.
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi David, Amitoj,
>> >
>> > The patch here seemed to remove the call to add_timer(&vp->timer) which
>> > applies the expires time. Would that be an issue?
>> >
>> > -Stafford
>>
>> I'm sorry. This is my mistake. How can I rectify it now that the patch
>> is applied?
>>
>> Should I send a patch adding it back?
>
>
> I sent a patch just now which could help to restore the behavior.
>
> This is applied on top of your patch which I pulled from Dave's
> tree here:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git
>
> -Stafford

Thanks!

Amitoj