[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221122103826.319644d0@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 10:38:26 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [patch 06/15] timers: Update kernel-doc for various functions
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 16:18:37 +0100
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >> *
> >> - * The function returns whether it has deactivated a pending timer or not.
> >> - * (ie. del_timer() of an inactive timer returns 0, del_timer() of an
> >> - * active timer returns 1.)
> >> + * Contrary to del_timer_sync() this function does not wait for an
> >> + * eventually running timer callback on a different CPU and it neither
> >
> > I'm a little confused with the "eventually running timer". Does that simply
> > mean one that is about to run next (that is, it doesn't handle race
> > conditions and the timer is in the process of starting), but will still
> > deactivate one that has not been started and the timer code for that CPU
> > hasn't triggered yet?
>
> Let me try again.
>
> The function only deactivates a pending timer, but contrary to
> del_timer_sync() it does not take into account whether the timers
> callback function is concurrently executed on a different CPU or not.
>
> Does that make more sense?
Yes, much better. Thanks!
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists