[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221122104124.2f04c7be@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 10:41:24 -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:
> >> + * This function cannot guarantee that the timer cannot be rearmed right
> >> + * after dropping the base lock. That needs to be prevented by the calling
> >> + * code if necessary.
> >
Also, re-reading it again, I wounder if we can avoid the double use of
"cannot", in "cannot guarantee that the timer cannot".
What about:
This function does not prevent the timer from being rearmed right after
dropping the base lock.
?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists