[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bk8gcwyx.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 15:20:06 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov
<ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend
<john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin
KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP
Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, Hao Luo
<haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Jiri Kosina
<jikos@...nel.org>, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC bpf-next v2 02/10] bpf/helpers: introduce sleepable
timers
Just one comment on one of your FIXMEs:
> + rcu_assign_pointer(t->sleepable_cb_fn, NULL);
> + /* FIXME: probably do something about the SLEEPABLE flag */
I guess we should store the flag in the timer struct somewhere, and then
restrict the set_callback() functions so that the regular variant only
works without the flag set, and the _sleepable version only works if the
flag is set? Otherwise we may end up calling a non-sleepable function in
sleepable context or vise versa...
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists