[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2ddbr=ck+G+80vGkVQ+L3snWkT1bbj2+1T6UJhm+_mrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:57:31 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: 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 2/9] timers: provide a "modern" variant of timers
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:24:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > b) give the union a name (breaks any reference to timer_list->func in C code):
>> >
>> > + union {
>> > + void (*func)(struct timer_list *timer);
>> > + void (*function)(unsigned long);
>> > + } u;
>>
>> I'll look into that, as it seems a lot safer, and places outside
>> the timer code shouldn't really touch it (although I bet they do,
>> so more fixes for this series..)
>
> Meh. All the old init_timer users set function directly, so
> I guess we need to use the other approach.
How expensive would it be to add another field to timer_list and
just have both pointers?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists