[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221104150210.1b147688@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2022 15:02:10 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Noralf Trønnes <noralf@...nnes.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 13/33] timers: drm: Use timer_shutdown_sync()
before freeing timer
On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 08:48:28 +0000
Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> If it stays all DRM drivers in one patch then I guess it needs to go via
> drm-misc, which for i915 would be okay I think in this case since patch
> is extremely unlikely to clash with anything. Or split it up per driver
> and then we can handle it in drm-intel-next once core functionality is in.
>
> We do however have some more calls to del_timer_sync, where freeing is
> perhaps not immediately next to the site in code, but things definitely
> get freed like on module unload. Would we need to convert all of them to
> avoid some, presumably new, warnings?
I'm happy to split this patch up. I just got a bit lazy and started
just grouping via entire subsystems. You should see the networking
patch ;-)
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists