netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: cancel_delayed_work() -> cancel_delayed_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:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:36:44 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc:	Mikhail Markine <markine@...gle.com>,
	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Petri Gynther <pgynther@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: cancel_delayed_work() ->
	cancel_delayed_work_sync()


On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 02:19:46PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Jarek,
> 
> Sorry to mail you directly, but I only saw your reply on gmane and
> didn't want to break up the threading etc.
> 
> cancel_delayed_work_sync() should be ok in this case unless the work
> items themselves used the rtnl,

Hmm, I'm not sure I get your point, but e.g. bond_mii_monitor() work
function can get rtnl_lock().

> the common problem only happens with
> flush_scheduled_work() -- sync() is fine since either it's running, then
> you need the sync, or if it's not running it doesn't matter if something
> else is on the queue before it that's blocked on the rtnl.
> 
> If you could reply to the thread to that effect I'd appreciate it :)

No problem with this question :-)
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html