[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070423171157.GA205@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:11:57 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, hch@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Getting the new RxRPC patches upstream
On 04/23, David Howells wrote:
>
> > We only care when del_timer() returns true. In that case, if the timer
> > function still runs (possible for single-threaded wqs), it has already
> > passed __queue_work().
>
> Why do you assume that?
If del_timer() returns true, the timer was pending. This means it was started
by work->func() (note that __run_timers() clears timer_pending() before calling
timer->function). This in turn means that delayed_work_timer_fn() has already
called __queue_work(dwork), otherwise work->func() has no chance to run.
When del_timer() returns true and delayed_work_timer_fn() doesn't run we are
safe, this doesn't differ from del_timer_sync().
Oleg.
-
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