[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z84hpurQ6Co2jqV1@pavilion.home>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:17:58 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
Pavel Tikhomirov <ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 09/18] posix-timers: Rework timer removal
Le Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 05:48:32PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
> @@ -988,90 +988,56 @@ static inline void posix_timer_cleanup_i
> }
> }
>
> -/* Delete a POSIX.1b interval timer. */
> -SYSCALL_DEFINE1(timer_delete, timer_t, timer_id)
> +static void posix_timer_delete(struct k_itimer *timer)
> {
> - struct k_itimer *timer = lock_timer(timer_id);
> -
> -retry_delete:
> - if (!timer)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - /* Prevent signal delivery and rearming. */
> + /*
> + * Invalidate the timer, remove it from the linked list and remove
> + * it from the ignored list if pending.
> + *
> + * The invalidation must be written with siglock held so that the
> + * signal code observes timer->it_valid == false in do_sigaction(),
I guess it_valid is a leftover from previous attempts?
Aside that and the lost WARN_ON in signal delivery:
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists