Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [patch] scalable timers implementation, 2.4.16, 2.5.0 | Date | Thu, 06 Dec 2001 13:15:42 +1100 |
| |
In message <3C0E9BFD.BC189E17@zip.com.au> you write: > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > PS. Also would be nice to #define del_timer del_timer_sync, and have a > > del_timer_async for those (very few) cases who really want this. > > That could cause very subtle deadlocks. I'd prefer to do: > > #define del_timer_async del_timer
I'd prefer to audit them all, create a patch, and remove del_timer. Doing it slowly usually means things just get forgotten, then hacked around when it finally gets ripped out.
The deadlock you're referring to is, I assume, del_timer_sync() called inside the timer itself? Can you think of any other dangerous cases?
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |