From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756765Ab0I3UxW (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:53:22 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134]:47163 "EHLO mgw-mx09.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754788Ab0I3UxV (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:53:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:50:57 +0300 From: Phil Carmody To: ext Thomas Gleixner Cc: "arjan@linux.intel.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mingo@elte.hu" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Bityutskiy Artem (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)" Subject: Re: timer: permit statically-declared work with deferrable timers Message-ID: <20100930205057.GC13742@esdhcp04044.research.nokia.com> References: <1285874789-1481-1-git-send-email-ext-phil.2.carmody@nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2010 20:52:26.0010 (UTC) FILETIME=[634D27A0:01CB60E1] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 30/09/10 22:08 +0200, ext Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Phil Carmody wrote: > > > > > Arjen, Thomas, > > > > This patch is an enabler which hopefully can lead to simplification of code > > elsewhere. For example, it would turn Artem's patch I refer to in the commit > > message (8eab945c5616fc984e97b922d6a2559be93f39a1) into just: > > > > -static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(cache_cleaner, do_cache_clean); > > +static DECLARE_DEFERRED_WORK(cache_cleaner, do_cache_clean); > > > > rather than the creation of a __init helper that required touching 3 files. > > > > I'm prepared to follow up with such simplifying patches if it's considered > > worthwhile. > > If it simplies stuff, no objections from my side. The patch looks > reasonable enough. > > How many (ab)users will it clean up ? Not a large number; absolute tops - a dozen. I've not investigated any apart from the couple that Artem addressed initially. And it's OK, the clients weren't the _ab_users. If anything we're the abusers for using sleight-of-hand to hide flags inside pointer values. (Which the C standard and GCC tried hard to stop us doing. Not hard enough, though ;-) .) My main intention is to make future patches like Artem's trivial. Change the type - change one line. Life's too short to headscratch and fight compilers. Cheers, Phil