Documentation: Replace del_timer/del_timer_sync()

Adjust to the new preferred function names.

Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123201625.075320635@linutronix.de
This commit is contained in:
Thomas Gleixner
2022-11-23 21:18:47 +01:00
parent bb663f0f3c
commit 87bdd932e8
6 changed files with 14 additions and 15 deletions

View File

@@ -967,7 +967,7 @@ you might do the following::
while (list) {
struct foo *next = list->next;
del_timer(&list->timer);
timer_delete(&list->timer);
kfree(list);
list = next;
}
@@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ the lock after we spin_unlock_bh(), and then try to free
the element (which has already been freed!).
This can be avoided by checking the result of
del_timer(): if it returns 1, the timer has been deleted.
timer_delete(): if it returns 1, the timer has been deleted.
If 0, it means (in this case) that it is currently running, so we can
do::
@@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ do::
while (list) {
struct foo *next = list->next;
if (!del_timer(&list->timer)) {
if (!timer_delete(&list->timer)) {
/* Give timer a chance to delete this */
spin_unlock_bh(&list_lock);
goto retry;
@@ -1005,8 +1005,7 @@ do::
Another common problem is deleting timers which restart themselves (by
calling add_timer() at the end of their timer function).
Because this is a fairly common case which is prone to races, you should
use del_timer_sync() (``include/linux/timer.h``) to
handle this case.
use timer_delete_sync() (``include/linux/timer.h``) to handle this case.
Locking Speed
=============
@@ -1334,7 +1333,7 @@ lock.
- kfree()
- add_timer() and del_timer()
- add_timer() and timer_delete()
Mutex API reference
===================