Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: > 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.
Ugh, I'm an <expletive deleted>. My next is based on rc2, so I can't take this. Can you please pick it up. cheers
