Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99pre6 use of mod_timer

From: François romieu (romieu@ensta.fr)
Date: Fri Apr 28 2000 - 17:27:13 EST

Next message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: "movb" for spin-unlock"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] C++ breaks on linux/ioport.h"
In reply to: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99pre6 use of mod_timer"
Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99pre6 use of mod_timer"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99pre6 use of mod_timer"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

The Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 04:56:23PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote :
[...]
> Looks reasonable... using mod_timer means you only acquire and release
> the timer lock once, not twice as with del_timer+add_timer.

Yes, but as Doug Ledford has just reminded me, it's gonna break seriously
with 2.0/2.2 drivers. I happily missed this point.
Thus, should I :
- back port mod_timer to 2.0/2.2 ;
- add a wrapper for mod_timer in every file supposed to be back-compatible ;
- forget it until someone brings in a good (TM) solution ?

-- Ueimor

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: "movb" for spin-unlock"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] C++ breaks on linux/ioport.h"
In reply to: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99pre6 use of mod_timer"
Next in thread: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99pre6 use of mod_timer"
Reply: Jeff Garzik: "Re: [PATCH] 2.3.99pre6 use of mod_timer"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 21:00:16 EST