6.1-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de
[ Upstream commit 87bdd932e85881895d4720255b40ac28749c4e32 ]
Adjust to the new preferred function names.
Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt rostedt@goodmis.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller jacob.e.keller@intel.com Reviewed-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen anna-maria@linutronix.de Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123201625.075320635@linutronix.de Signed-off-by: Jeongjun Park aha310510@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst | 2 +- Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst | 2 +- Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 11 +++++------ Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst | 2 +- Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/locking.rst | 10 +++++----- Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/local_ops.rst | 2 +- 6 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
--- a/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst @@ -1858,7 +1858,7 @@ unloaded. After a given module has been one of its functions results in a segmentation fault. The module-unload functions must therefore cancel any delayed calls to loadable-module functions, for example, any outstanding mod_timer() must be dealt -with via del_timer_sync() or similar. +with via timer_delete_sync() or similar.
Unfortunately, there is no way to cancel an RCU callback; once you invoke call_rcu(), the callback function is eventually going to be --- a/Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst +++ b/Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ Here is a sample module which implements
static void __exit test_exit(void) { - del_timer_sync(&test_timer); + timer_delete_sync(&test_timer); }
module_init(test_init); --- a/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst +++ b/Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst @@ -967,7 +967,7 @@ you might do the following::
while (list) { struct foo *next = list->next; - del_timer(&list->timer); + timer_delete(&list->timer); kfree(list); list = next; } @@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ the lock after we spin_unlock_bh(), and the element (which has already been freed!).
This can be avoided by checking the result of -del_timer(): if it returns 1, the timer has been deleted. +timer_delete(): if it returns 1, the timer has been deleted. If 0, it means (in this case) that it is currently running, so we can do::
@@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ do::
while (list) { struct foo *next = list->next; - if (!del_timer(&list->timer)) { + if (!timer_delete(&list->timer)) { /* Give timer a chance to delete this */ spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock); goto retry; @@ -1005,8 +1005,7 @@ do:: Another common problem is deleting timers which restart themselves (by calling add_timer() at the end of their timer function). Because this is a fairly common case which is prone to races, you should -use del_timer_sync() (``include/linux/timer.h``) to -handle this case. +use timer_delete_sync() (``include/linux/timer.h``) to
Locking Speed ============= @@ -1334,7 +1333,7 @@ lock.
- kfree()
-- add_timer() and del_timer() +- add_timer() and timer_delete()
Mutex API reference =================== --- a/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst +++ b/Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ existing timer wheel code, as it is matu was not really a win, due to the different data structures. Also, the hrtimer functions now have clearer behavior and clearer names - such as hrtimer_try_to_cancel() and hrtimer_cancel() [which are roughly -equivalent to del_timer() and del_timer_sync()] - so there's no direct +equivalent to timer_delete() and timer_delete_sync()] - so there's no direct 1:1 mapping between them on the algorithmic level, and thus no real potential for code sharing either.
--- a/Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/locking.rst +++ b/Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/locking.rst @@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ potreste fare come segue::
while (list) { struct foo *next = list->next; - del_timer(&list->timer); + timer_delete(&list->timer); kfree(list); list = next; } @@ -1003,7 +1003,7 @@ e prenderà il *lock* solo dopo spin_unl di eliminare il suo oggetto (che però è già stato eliminato).
Questo può essere evitato controllando il valore di ritorno di -del_timer(): se ritorna 1, il temporizzatore è stato già +timer_delete(): se ritorna 1, il temporizzatore è stato già rimosso. Se 0, significa (in questo caso) che il temporizzatore è in esecuzione, quindi possiamo fare come segue::
@@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ esecuzione, quindi possiamo fare come se
while (list) { struct foo *next = list->next; - if (!del_timer(&list->timer)) { + if (!timer_delete(&list->timer)) { /* Give timer a chance to delete this */ spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock); goto retry; @@ -1026,7 +1026,7 @@ esecuzione, quindi possiamo fare come se Un altro problema è l'eliminazione dei temporizzatori che si riavviano da soli (chiamando add_timer() alla fine della loro esecuzione). Dato che questo è un problema abbastanza comune con una propensione -alle corse critiche, dovreste usare del_timer_sync() +alle corse critiche, dovreste usare timer_delete_sync() (``include/linux/timer.h``) per gestire questo caso.
Velocità della sincronizzazione @@ -1372,7 +1372,7 @@ contesto, o trattenendo un qualsiasi *lo
- kfree()
-- add_timer() e del_timer() +- add_timer() e timer_delete()
Riferimento per l'API dei Mutex =============================== --- a/Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/local_ops.rst +++ b/Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/local_ops.rst @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ UP之间没有不同的行为，在你�
static void __exit test_exit(void) { - del_timer_sync(&test_timer); + timer_delete_sync(&test_timer); }
module_init(test_init);