Documentation: Replace del_timer/del_timer_sync()

Adjust to the new preferred function names.
Suggested-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: NJacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NAnna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221123201625.075320635@linutronix.de

Documentation/RCU/Design/Requirements/Requirements.rst

@@ -1858,7 +1858,7 @@ unloaded. After a given module has been unloaded, any attempt to call
 one of its functions results in a segmentation fault. The module-unload
 functions must therefore cancel any delayed calls to loadable-module
 functions, for example, any outstanding mod_timer() must be dealt
-with via del_timer_sync() or similar.
+with via timer_delete_sync() or similar.
 
 Unfortunately, there is no way to cancel an RCU callback; once you
 invoke call_rcu(), the callback function is eventually going to be

Documentation/core-api/local_ops.rst

@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ Here is a sample module which implements a basic per cpu counter using
 
     static void __exit test_exit(void)
     {
-            del_timer_sync(&test_timer);
+            timer_delete_sync(&test_timer);
     }
 
     module_init(test_init);

Documentation/kernel-hacking/locking.rst

@@ -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
 ===================

Documentation/timers/hrtimers.rst

@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ existing timer wheel code, as it is mature and well suited. Sharing code
 was not really a win, due to the different data structures. Also, the
 hrtimer functions now have clearer behavior and clearer names - such as
 hrtimer_try_to_cancel() and hrtimer_cancel() [which are roughly
-equivalent to del_timer() and del_timer_sync()] - so there's no direct
+equivalent to timer_delete() and timer_delete_sync()] - so there's no direct
 1:1 mapping between them on the algorithmic level, and thus no real
 potential for code sharing either.
 

Documentation/translations/it_IT/kernel-hacking/locking.rst

@@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ potreste fare come segue::
 
             while (list) {
                     struct foo *next = list->next;
-                    del_timer(&list->timer);
+                    timer_delete(&list->timer);
                     kfree(list);
                     list = next;
             }
@@ -1003,7 +1003,7 @@ e prenderà il *lock* solo dopo spin_unlock_bh(), e cercherà
 di eliminare il suo oggetto (che però è già stato eliminato).
 
 Questo può essere evitato controllando il valore di ritorno di
-del_timer(): se ritorna 1, il temporizzatore è stato già
+timer_delete(): se ritorna 1, il temporizzatore è stato già
 rimosso. Se 0, significa (in questo caso) che il temporizzatore è in
 esecuzione, quindi possiamo fare come segue::
 
@@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ esecuzione, quindi possiamo fare come segue::
 
                     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;
@@ -1026,7 +1026,7 @@ esecuzione, quindi possiamo fare come segue::
 Un altro problema è l'eliminazione dei temporizzatori che si riavviano
 da soli (chiamando add_timer() alla fine della loro esecuzione).
 Dato che questo è un problema abbastanza comune con una propensione
-alle corse critiche, dovreste usare del_timer_sync()
+alle corse critiche, dovreste usare timer_delete_sync()
 (``include/linux/timer.h``) per gestire questo caso.
 
 Velocità della sincronizzazione
@@ -1372,7 +1372,7 @@ contesto, o trattenendo un qualsiasi *lock*.
 
 -  kfree()
 
--  add_timer() e del_timer()
+-  add_timer() e timer_delete()
 
 Riferimento per l'API dei Mutex
 ===============================

Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/local_ops.rst

@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ UP之间没有不同的行为，在你的架构的 ``local.h`` 中包括 ``asm-g
 
     static void __exit test_exit(void)
     {
-            del_timer_sync(&test_timer);
+            timer_delete_sync(&test_timer);
     }
 
     module_init(test_init);