linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/13] workqueue: fix work

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:53:49 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@...il.com>
Cc:	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] workqueue: fix work_busy()

Hello,

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:06:54PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>@@ -3453,15 +3451,13 @@ unsigned int work_busy(struct work_struct *work)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct worker_pool *pool = get_work_pool(work);
> >>  	unsigned long flags;
> >>-	unsigned int ret = 0;
> >>+	unsigned int ret = work_pending(work) ? WORK_BUSY_PENDING : 0;
> >
> >I'd prefer this as a if() statement.
> >
> >>  	if (!pool)
> >>-		return 0;
> >>+		return ret;
> >
> >I'm a bit confused.  When can we be pending w/o pool?
> >
> 
> grab the pending bits <==time==> really queued
> 			^
> 		this patch considers the work is busy in this time

Given the advisory nature of the function, why do we care?  Is it
needed for later patches?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/