Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Date | Thu, 18 May 2017 10:57:31 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/9] timers: provide a "modern" variant of timers |
| |
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:24:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> > b) give the union a name (breaks any reference to timer_list->func in C code): >> > >> > + union { >> > + void (*func)(struct timer_list *timer); >> > + void (*function)(unsigned long); >> > + } u; >> >> I'll look into that, as it seems a lot safer, and places outside >> the timer code shouldn't really touch it (although I bet they do, >> so more fixes for this series..) > > Meh. All the old init_timer users set function directly, so > I guess we need to use the other approach.
How expensive would it be to add another field to timer_list and just have both pointers?
Arnd
| |