On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 08:08:14AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > 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).
I was contemplating before applying it whether I should ask ... Oh well, problem is that drm-misc is non-rebasing, but you can just apply it twice. git usually figures it out. Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> in case you do so. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
