Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:10:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, ktkhai@parallels.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de, juri.lelli@gmail.com,
        pang.xunlei@linaro.org, wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] hrtimer: HRTIMER_STATE_ fixes
Message-ID: <20150608151039.GA23138@redhat.com>
References: <20150605084836.364306429@infradead.org> <20150605085205.723058588@infradead.org> <20150607223317.GA5193@redhat.com> <20150608091417.GM19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150608141709.GX18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150608141709.GX18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 741
Lines: 24

On 06/08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree, but I think its a pre-existing problem, not one
> > introduced by my proposed patch.
>
> Something like this would fix that I think. It fully preserves
> timer->state over hrtimer_start_range_ns().

Yes, but I think we can do a bit better.

Only for initial review, I need to re-check this...

And. I think that after you remove STATE_CALLBACK we can even kill
timer->state altogether, but this is another story.

What do you think?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/