Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> writes: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:29 AM, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: >> Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:47:10 -0700 >>> Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> 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. >>>> >>>> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> >>>> Cc: Paul Mackerras <pau...@samba.org> >>>> Cc: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> >>>> Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: linuxppc-...@lists.ozlabs.org >>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> >>> >>> Looks fine to me. Is this intended to be merged via the powerpc tree >>> in the next merge window? >> >> It relies on the new timer_setup(), which is in one of tglx's trees (I >> think). So I expect it to go via that tree. > > It's in -rc3, but the timer tree can carry it if you want. Which do > you prefer?
Oh sorry, I assumed it was in only in linux-next. I'll take this. Thanks. cheers
