Re: [PATCH 00/44] hrtimers: Switch to new hrtimer interface functions (4/5)

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Mon, Oct 28 2024 at 10:58, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> Nam Cao <namcao@linutronix.de> writes:
>
>> This is the forth part of a 5-part series (split for convenience). All 5
>> parts are:
>>
>> Part 1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1729864615.git.namcao@linutronix.de
>> Part 2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1729864823.git.namcao@linutronix.de
>> Part 3: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1729865232.git.namcao@linutronix.de
>> Part 4: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1729865485.git.namcao@linutronix.de
>> Part 5: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1729865740.git.namcao@linutronix.de
>
> Which one do I need to click on to see the actual hrtimer_setup*()
> implementations? Why is it even a separate series? Please, don't make
> people click on things.

Obviously part 1. The splitup was dont to avoid 500+ people which is
generally frowned upon.

>> That can cause misuse of hrtimer. For example, because:
>>   - The callback function is not setup
>>   - The callback function is setup while it is not safe to do so
>
> These are not examples, these are hypotheticals. Do either of these
> things actually happen in the codebase?

Right now not, but we had this in the past.

>> To prevent misuse of hrtimer, this series:
>>   - Introduce new functions hrtimer_setup*(). These new functions are
>>     similar to hrtimer_init*(), except that they also sanity-check and
>>     initialize the callback function.

> I'm not objecting to the idea, it's just carried out weirdly.

Right. There should have been a sectioning to explain what which part of
the series does. My bad.

Thanks,

        tglx