Re: [patch] scalable timers implementation, 2.4.16, 2.5.0

Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
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/