On 30.07.2025 20:31, dm...@proton.me wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 10:12:54AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 30.07.2025 05:13, dm...@proton.me wrote: >>> From: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com> >>> >>> As it stands, polling timer is kept in the list of timers even after the >>> interrupts have been enabled / polling disabled on ns16550-compatible UART. >>> >>> Ensure polling timer is removed from the timer list once UART interrupts are >>> enabled. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Denis Mukhin <dmuk...@ford.com> >> >> Wasn't it Andrew(?) who suggested something along these lines? That would >> want reflecting by a tag then. > > Yes, indeed. > >> >> Also, what's the real problem you want to solve here? The timer function >> would be run one more time after ->intr_works is set, and then the timer >> will be permanently inactive (up to a possible S3 resume). Is it being on >> an inactive list an actual problem? (IOW I'd like to understand if the >> change is merely cosmetic, or if there is some actual benefit.) > > My understanding is running polling timer one more time after the interrupts > are enabled is the issue: if there's a pending timer when it is known the > timer not needed, then the timer should be canceled.
And the effort of canceling outweighs the one extra running of the timer? Jan
