[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: callout_stop => callout_halt
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Taylor R Campbell
> <campbell+netbsd-tech-kern%mumble.net@localhost> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:03:48 +0900
>> From: Ryota Ozaki <ozaki-r%netbsd.org@localhost>
>> In order to call callout_destroy for a callout
>> safely, we have to ensure no instance of the callout
>> is running. To do so, we should use callout_halt not
>> callout_stop, IIUC. However, there are several
>> callout_stop(); callout_destroy() sequences.
>> Should we replace such callout_stop with callout_halt?
> Thanks. I'll prepare a patch for sweeping them out.
Here is a patch that includes only ones that require interlock
and rearrangements. Others can be fixed by simply replacing
callout_stop with callout_halt (already committed).
Is the patch okay to commit?
>> We should also add a usb_rem_task_sync for the same purpose.
> Someone please :)
Main Index |
Thread Index |