On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:40:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Back in April, I posted an RFC patch set to help mitigate a common issue
> where a timer gets armed just before it is freed, and when the timer
> goes off, it crashes in the timer code without any evidence of who the
> culprit
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 04:38:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 15:42:09 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
[ ... ]
>
> > drivers/clocksource/timer-fttmr010.c: fttmr010->timer_shutdown(evt);
> > drivers/clocksource/timer-fttmr010.c: fttmr010->timer_shutdown(evt);
> >
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:42:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:22:32 -0700
> Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately the renaming caused some symbol conflicts.
> >
> > Global definition: timer_shutdown
> >
> > File Line
> > 0 time.c93 static
On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 15:42:09 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> $ git grep '\btimer_shutdown'
> arch/arm/mach-spear/time.c:static inline void timer_shutdown(struct
> clock_event_device *evt)
> arch/arm/mach-spear/time.c: timer_shutdown(evt);
> arch/arm/mach-spear/time.c: timer_shutdown(evt);
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 12:42 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Linus, should I also add any patches that has already been acked by the
> respective maintainer?
No, I'd prefer to keep only the ones that are 100% unambiguously not
changing any semantics.
Linus
On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 12:22:32 -0700
Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Unfortunately the renaming caused some symbol conflicts.
>
> Global definition: timer_shutdown
>
> File Line
> 0 time.c93 static inline void timer_shutdown(struct
> clock_event_device *evt)
> 1 arm_arch_timer.c
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:40:53AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Back in April, I posted an RFC patch set to help mitigate a common issue
> where a timer gets armed just before it is freed, and when the timer
> goes off, it crashes in the timer code without any evidence of who the
> culprit
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 10:48 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Ideally, I would have the first patch go into this rc cycle, which is mostly
> non functional as it will allow the other patches to come in via the
> respective
> subsystems in the next merge window.
Ack.
I also wonder if we could do
Back in April, I posted an RFC patch set to help mitigate a common issue
where a timer gets armed just before it is freed, and when the timer
goes off, it crashes in the timer code without any evidence of who the
culprit was. I got side tracked and never finished up on that patch set.
Since this
