2002-11-26 13:46:12

by Petr Vandrovec

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ncpfs seems to need the timer init

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 02:12:52AM +0000, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:

Linus, please revert this. It is changeset

[email protected]|ChangeSet|20021126021252|43411

Timer is already initialized few lines above in the code. If you'll look
through fs/ncpfs/inode.c history, you'll find that I already asked once
for removing this redundant timer initialization, but unfortunately it
found its way to the tree again :-(

I prefer having init_timer() and timeout_tm setup separate, as now
I can safely call del_timer in shutdown without having to test
whether I'm in UDP or TCP code...

Thanks,
Petr Vandrovec
[email protected]

> ChangeSet 1.842.42.99, 2002/11/25 18:12:52-08:00, [email protected]
>
> [PATCH] ncpfs seems to need the timer init
>
>
> # This patch includes the following deltas:
> # ChangeSet 1.842.42.98 -> 1.842.42.99
> # fs/ncpfs/inode.c 1.36 -> 1.37
> #
>
> inode.c | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
>
> diff -Nru a/fs/ncpfs/inode.c b/fs/ncpfs/inode.c
> --- a/fs/ncpfs/inode.c Mon Nov 25 20:11:32 2002
> +++ b/fs/ncpfs/inode.c Mon Nov 25 20:11:32 2002
> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@
> } else {
> INIT_WORK(&server->rcv.tq, ncpdgram_rcv_proc, server);
> INIT_WORK(&server->timeout_tq, ncpdgram_timeout_proc, server);
> + init_timer(&server->timeout_tm);
> server->timeout_tm.data = (unsigned long)server;
> server->timeout_tm.function = ncpdgram_timeout_call;
> }

2002-11-26 13:57:11

by Alan

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ncpfs seems to need the timer init

On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 13:53, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 02:12:52AM +0000, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
>
> Linus, please revert this. It is changeset
>
> [email protected]|ChangeSet|20021126021252|43411
>
> Timer is already initialized few lines above in the code. If you'll look
> through fs/ncpfs/inode.c history, you'll find that I already asked once
> for removing this redundant timer initialization, but unfortunately it
> found its way to the tree again :-(

Sorry. I'll revert that in my tree too