[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061217173201.GA31675@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:32:04 +0300
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:24:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds (torvalds@...l.org) wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:
> > - if (likely(!test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING,
> > - &__cbq->work.work.management) &&
> > + if (likely(!work_pending(&__cbq->work.work) &&
>
> That should properly be
>
> if (likely(!delayed_work_pending(&__cbq->work) && ...
>
> and why the heck was it doing that open-coded int he first place?
>
> HOWEVER, looking even more, why is that thing a "delayed work" at all? All
> the queuing seems to happen with a timeout of zero..
>
> So I _think_ that the proper patch is actually the following, but somebody
> who knows and uses the connector thing should double-check. Please?
Delayed work was used to play with different timeouts and thus allow to
smooth performance peaks, but then I dropped that idea, so timeout is always
zero.
I posted similar patch today to netdev@, which directly used
work_pending instead of delayed_work_pending(), but if you will figure
this out itself, I'm ok with proposed patch.
> Linus
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists