[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKt6pypVhxMEv9LYsYvF_P=u3SOK=Yc268wS+oYOHiH=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:23:53 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/watchdog: Convert timers to use timer_setup()
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
> Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:47:10 -0700
>> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
>>> all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
>>> to pass the timer pointer explicitly.
>>>
>>> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
>>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>>> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
>>> Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>
>> Looks fine to me. Is this intended to be merged via the powerpc tree
>> in the next merge window?
>
> It relies on the new timer_setup(), which is in one of tglx's trees (I
> think). So I expect it to go via that tree.
It's in -rc3, but the timer tree can carry it if you want. Which do you prefer?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists