On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Ian Abbott wrote:
> On 01/09/17 10:29, Ian Abbott wrote:
>>
>> On 01/09/17 00:29, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> With timer initialization made unconditional, there is no reason to
>>> make del_timer_sync() calls conditionally, there by removing the test
>>> of the .data
On 01/09/17 10:29, Ian Abbott wrote:
On 01/09/17 00:29, Kees Cook wrote:
With timer initialization made unconditional, there is no reason to
make del_timer_sync() calls conditionally, there by removing the test
of the .data field.
Cc: Ian Abbott
Cc: H Hartley Sweeten
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
C
On 01/09/17 00:29, Kees Cook wrote:
With timer initialization made unconditional, there is no reason to
make del_timer_sync() calls conditionally, there by removing the test
of the .data field.
Cc: Ian Abbott
Cc: H Hartley Sweeten
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: de...@driverdev.osuosl.org
Signed-o
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:29:38PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> With timer initialization made unconditional, there is no reason to
> make del_timer_sync() calls conditionally, there by removing the test
> of the .data field.
>
> Cc: Ian Abbott
> Cc: H Hartley Sweeten
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
> Cc
With timer initialization made unconditional, there is no reason to
make del_timer_sync() calls conditionally, there by removing the test
of the .data field.
Cc: Ian Abbott
Cc: H Hartley Sweeten
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: de...@driverdev.osuosl.org
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
---
drivers/staging
