lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-18 10:59    [W:0.122 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site