[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ce3f4736-33de-a6bd-6e86-567bec097bf@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:22:08 +0100 (CET)
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
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
Subject: Re: [patch V2 12/17] timers: Silently ignore timers with a NULL
function
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Tearing down timers which have circular dependencies to other
> functionality, e.g. workqueues, where the timer can schedule work and work
> can arm timers is not trivial.
NIT (comma is missing): can arm timer, is not trivial.
> In those cases it is desired to shutdown the timer in a way which prevents
> rearming of the timer. The mechanism to do so it to set timer->function to
s/to do so it/to do so is/
> NULL and use this as an indicator for the timer arming functions to ignore
> the (re)arm request.
>
> In preparation for that replace the warnings in the relevant code pathes
> with checks for timer->function == NULL and discard the rearm request
> silently.
Here is a verb missing that this is a grammatically correct (and
understandable) sentence.
> Add debug_assert_init() instead of the WARN_ON_ONCE(!timer->function)
> checks so that debug objects can warn about non-initialized timers.
>
> If developers fail to enable debug objects and then waste lots of time to
> figure out why their non-initialized timer is not firing, they deserve it.
>
> Co-developed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220407161745.7d6754b3@gandalf.local.home
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221110064101.429013735@goodmis.org
> ---
> V2: Use continue instead of return and amend the return value docs (Steven)
> ---
> kernel/time/timer.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/time/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
> @@ -1128,8 +1144,12 @@ static inline int
> * mod_timer_pending() is the same for pending timers as mod_timer(), but
> * will not activate inactive timers.
> *
> + * If @timer->function == NULL then the start operation is silently
> + * discarded.
> + *
> * Return:
> - * * %0 - The timer was inactive and not modified
> + * * %0 - The timer was inactive and not modified or was is in
> + * shutdown state and the operation was discarded
Do you mean "was" or "is"? Please have also a look at the places where you
use the same phrase.
> * * %1 - The timer was active and requeued to expire at @expires
> */
> int mod_timer_pending(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires)
> @@ -1155,8 +1175,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mod_timer_pending);
> * same timer, then mod_timer() is the only safe way to modify the timeout,
> * since add_timer() cannot modify an already running timer.
> *
> + * If @timer->function == NULL then the start operation is silently
> + * discarded, the return value is 0 and meaningless.
It's easier to read, if you make a dot instead of comma.
Thanks,
Anna-Maria
Powered by blists - more mailing lists