Re: timer: permit statically-declared work with deferrable timers

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Phil Carmody wrote:

> 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.

Fair enough.

     tglx