[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Convert timers to use timer_setup()

[Kees Cook]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Kees Cook (2017-10-25 15:05:13)
>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-10-25 11:24:19)
>> >> Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-10-24 17:17:09)
>> >> > Quoting Kees Cook (2017-10-24 16:13:44)
>> >> > > In preparation for unconditionally passing the struct timer_list pointer to
>> >> > > all timer callbacks, switch to using the new timer_setup() and from_timer()
>> >> > > to pass the timer pointer explicitly.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com>
>> >> > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
>> >> > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
>> >> > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied at linux.ie>
>> >> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> >> > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> >> > > Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> >> > > Cc: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>> >> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook at chromium.org>
>> >> >
>> >> > Thank you for saving me from having to do this myself,
>> >> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> >>
>> >> I've a small batch of selftests patches queued, so added this one and
>> >> will push to drm-intel-next-queued shortly.
>> >
>> > Oh dear, major faux pas. There is no timer_setup_on_stack yet.
>>
>> Argh. Right, sorry. That's only in -next. Since this is mainly a
>> mechanical change, should I carry this in the timer tree, or wait
>> until the merge window for it to go via i915?
>
> Jani has the final word, but my understanding is that there will be no
> more from i915 towards the 4.15 merge. Hmm, the origin of this timer,
>
> commit 214707fc2ce08d09982bc4fe4b7a1c1f010e82be
> Author: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Date:   Thu Oct 12 13:57:25 2017 +0100
>
>     drm/i915/selftests: Wrap a timer into a i915_sw_fence
>
> did make it into 4.15, so it would have been better to put into a
> separate tree for the 4.15 merge window anyway. In hindsight, yes this
> probably wants to be carried in the timer tree to be applied after i915.
> (I guess there will be a few other stragglers that need to be converted
> at the end of the merge window anyway.)

Yeah, it's going to be messy, but I'll manage. I'll be carrying a lot
of other stuff as well. Avoiding conflicts will be the trick. Wheee.
:)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security