[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1208142055260.32033@ionos>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:16:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] timer: clean up initializers and implement irqsafe
timers
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 11:10:24AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Timer internals are protected by irqsafe lock but the lock is
> > naturally dropped and irq enabled while a timer is executed. This
> > makes dequeueing timer for execution and the actual execution
> > non-atomic against IRQs. No matter what the timer function does, IRQs
> > can occur between timer dispatch and execution. This means that an
> > IRQ handler could interrupt any timer in progress and it's impossible
> > for an IRQ handler to cancel and drain a timer.
>
> If nobody objects, I'll route this through wq/for-3.7 together with
> "workqueue: use irqsafe timer in delayed_work" patchset. If you
> object, please scream.
Second thoughts.
Why the hell are you trying to rush stuff which affects a well
maintained part of the kernel through your own tree w/o having the
courtesy of contacting the maintainer politely instead of sending an
ultimatum?
You posted that series less than a week ago and there is no reason why
you need to push hard on inclusion into next after a few days.
If you really cared about my opinion you could have figured out that
I'm on vacation.
Yours grumpy
tglx
--
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