Re: [PATCH v2] staging: greybus: Convert timers to use timer_setup()

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM,  <pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 30 October 2017 9:37:37 p.m. GMT+00:00, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>>> >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>>> >>> The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last
>>year which
>>>> >>> converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in
>>greybus
>>>> >>> core.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Actually I wasn't clear if you wanted to to that yourself aswell
>>as the
>>>> >> rest if it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But sure I can do that conversion, it's on my list.
>>>> >
>>>> > IIRC it was basically done. Just some odd locking that could now
>>also be
>>>> > removed.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Johan
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I think once Kees' change is applied to operation.c and we convert
>>the
>>>> async stuff to operation.c's callbacks there ought to be no use of
>>>> timers, linked lists of operations.
>>>
>>> That's correct.
>>>
>>>> I'll probably need at least a day to look at that, so it'll be the
>>>> weekend before I can really allocate time.
>>>
>>> Cool. I'm quite sure I just rebased your loopback conversion patch on
>>my
>>> core timeout handling and used that to test the core implementation,
>>so
>>> it should be straight forward.
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I seem to have lost the thread of conversation a bit. What exactly
>>remains that I should be doing here for timer conversions? (It sounded
>>like it was already partially handled already?)
>>
>>-Kees
>
> Trying again without top posting in html :(
>
> Just pair the patch down to operation.c.
>
> There's a separate change to loopback.c an old patch ARAIR that will subtract use of the timer from loopback.c so you can skip that bit.

Okay, cool. Since the operation.c change is trivial, I'll include it
in the giant tree-wide patch that will (hopefully) land in -rc1.

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security