While there has been a new (conditionalized) call to del_singleshot_timer_sync() added, the old instance hasn''t been deleted (other than the parallel atomic_set(&chip->data_pending, 0)). Is this intentional? If so, how is this supposed to work? Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com wrote on 02/14/2006 11:37:45 AM:> While there has been a new (conditionalized) call to > del_singleshot_timer_sync() added, the old instance hasn''t been > deleted (other than the parallel atomic_set(&chip->data_pending, > 0)). Is this intentional? If so, how is this supposed > to work?This has most likely been introduced during the recent merging with newer kernel trees. -- Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> Stefan Berger <stefanb@us.ibm.com> 14.02.06 19:25:19 >>> >xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com wrote on 02/14/2006 11:37:45 AM: > >> While there has been a new (conditionalized) call to >> del_singleshot_timer_sync() added, the old instance hasn''t been >> deleted (other than the parallel atomic_set(&chip->data_pending, >> 0)). Is this intentional? If so, how is this supposed >> to work? > >This has most likely been introduced during the recent merging with newer >kernel trees.But this doesn''t tell me if the current code is correct or has to be regarded broken (as I suspect)... Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote on 02/15/2006 03:42:00 AM:> >>> Stefan Berger <stefanb@us.ibm.com> 14.02.06 19:25:19 >>> > >xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com wrote on 02/14/2006 11:37:45 AM: > > > >> While there has been a new (conditionalized) call to > >> del_singleshot_timer_sync() added, the old instance hasn''t been > >> deleted (other than the parallel atomic_set(&chip->data_pending, > >> 0)). Is this intentional? If so, how is this supposed > >> to work? > > > >This has most likely been introduced during the recent merging withnewer> >kernel trees. > > But this doesn''t tell me if the current code is correct or has to be > regarded broken (as I suspect)...It can be regarded as broken. Thanks for finding this and I will post a patch later. Stefan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel