On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:05:29PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 08:16:09AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> 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: Patrik Jakobsson <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: David Airlie <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> >> > >> > Do you expect drm folks to apply this, or is this part of a larger >> > refactoring? >> >> If the drm tree includes -rc3, you can carry these. If you don't want >> to carry these and want the timer tree to carry them, we can do that >> too. > > Applied to drm-misc-next for 4.16 (we're way past freeze for 4.15 > already).
Since this is one of the few remaining "non-trivial" users of the ancient init_timer() API, would you mind if the timers tree carried this for 4.15? I'm trying to entirely remove the init_timer() API (and if I can, remove the old setup_*timer() API too). Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
