From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932455Ab0I3U41 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:27 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:53405 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932420Ab0I3U40 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:56:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:55:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Phil Carmody 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 In-Reply-To: <20100930205057.GC13742@esdhcp04044.research.nokia.com> Message-ID: References: <1285874789-1481-1-git-send-email-ext-phil.2.carmody@nokia.com> <20100930205057.GC13742@esdhcp04044.research.nokia.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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