From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:52:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] drivers/firmware: psci: Convert timers to use timer_setup() In-Reply-To: <20171024101331.GA69243@beast> References: <20171024101331.GA69243@beast> Message-ID: <20171024135258.GA9612@red-moon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Kees, On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 03:13:31AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > 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. > Also adds missing call to destroy_timer_on_stack(). This patch should be split I think. I can send a patch to add the missing destroy_timer_on_stack() call (which may get in as a fix) and then we add a patch to update the timer setup API. > Cc: Mark Rutland > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook > --- > drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c b/drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c > index 6523ce962865..f3f4f810e5df 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int hotplug_tests(void) > return err; > } > > -static void dummy_callback(unsigned long ignored) {} > +static void dummy_callback(struct timer_list *unused) {} > > static int suspend_cpu(int index, bool broadcast) > { > @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static int suspend_test_thread(void *arg) > pr_info("CPU %d entering suspend cycles, states 1 through %d\n", > cpu, drv->state_count - 1); > > - setup_timer_on_stack(&wakeup_timer, dummy_callback, 0); > + timer_setup_on_stack(&wakeup_timer, dummy_callback, 0); drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c: In function 'suspend_test_thread': drivers/firmware/psci_checker.c:290:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'timer_setup_on_stack' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] timer_setup_on_stack(&wakeup_timer, dummy_callback, 0); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On which tree this change is based on ? I will send out the fix separately and CC you in. Thanks, Lorenzo > for (i = 0; i < NUM_SUSPEND_CYCLE; ++i) { > int index; > /* > @@ -340,6 +340,7 @@ static int suspend_test_thread(void *arg) > * later. > */ > del_timer(&wakeup_timer); > + destroy_timer_on_stack(&wakeup_timer); > > if (atomic_dec_return_relaxed(&nb_active_threads) == 0) > complete(&suspend_threads_done); > -- > 2.7.4 > > > -- > Kees Cook > Pixel Security