| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:50:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> cc: Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Deleting timers Thomas: The major difference -- in fact, almost the only difference -- between del_timer() and try_to_del_timer_sync() is that try_to_del_timer_sync returns a special code (-1) if the timer couldn't be deleted because it is currently running, whereas del_timer doesn't check this. Furthermore, the "_sync" in the name suggests that try_to_del_timer_sync will wait until a running timer has finished, which it clearly does not do. Despite these facts, the kerneldoc for try_to_del_timer_sync states that it must not be called in interrupt context. Why not? Isn't that advice simply wrong? With this in mind, would there be any objection if I renamed it to try_to_del_timer(), removed the comment forbidding it to be used in interrupt context, and made it available even on non-SMP builds? Alan Stern P.S.: The only other difference is that del_timer calls timer_stats_timer_clear_start_info. Why doesn't try_to_del_timer_sync do the same thing? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists