On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-10-25 11:24:19) >> Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-10-24 17:17:09) >> > Quoting Kees Cook (2017-10-24 16:13:44) >> > > In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer >> > > to >> > > all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and >> > > from_timer() >> > > to pass the timer pointer explicitly. >> > > >> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@linux.intel.com> >> > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> >> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> >> > > Cc: David Airlie <airl...@linux.ie> >> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> >> > > Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> > > Cc: intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org >> > > Cc: dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org >> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> >> > >> > Thank you for saving me from having to do this myself, >> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> >> I've a small batch of selftests patches queued, so added this one and >> will push to drm-intel-next-queued shortly. > > Oh dear, major faux pas. There is no timer_setup_on_stack yet.
Argh. Right, sorry. That's only in -next. Since this is mainly a mechanical change, should I carry this in the timer tree, or wait until the merge window for it to go via i915? -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
