[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170518082558.GC3812@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:25:58 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] timers: remove old timer initialization macros
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 09:43:34PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > - * Don't use the macros below, use DECLARE_TIMER and INIT_TIMER with their
> > + * Don't use the macro below, use DECLARE_TIMER and INIT_TIMER with their
> > * improved callback signature above.
> > */
> > -#define __TIMER_INITIALIZER(_function, _expires, _data, _flags) { \
> > +#define DEFINE_TIMER(_name, _function, _expires, _data) \
> > + struct timer_list _name = { \
> > .entry = { .next = TIMER_ENTRY_STATIC }, \
> > .function = (_function), \
> > .expires = (_expires), \
> > .data = (_data), \
> > - .flags = (_flags), \
> > __TIMER_LOCKDEP_MAP_INITIALIZER( \
> > __FILE__ ":" __stringify(__LINE__)) \
> > }
>
> Not sure what to do about it, but I notice that the '_expires'
> argument is completely
> bogus, I don't see any way it could be used in a meaningful way, and the only
> user that passes anything other than zero is arch/mips/mti-malta/malta-display.c
> and that seems to be unintentional.
DEFINE_TIMER is the old macro and instead of fixing it up I'll just
make sure the new DECLARE_TIMER gets rid of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists