[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0912141803000.2690-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:04:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Warn people about flush_scheduled_work()
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2009 23:02:51 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > > Am Montag, 14. Dezember 2009 22:33:38 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > > Consider using cancel_work_sync() or cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> > > > instead. In most situations they will accomplish what you
> > > > need.
> > >
> > > In which respect is cancel_work_sync() fundamentally safer?
> > > If the work is already running and takes a lock you are holding,
> > > then what?
> >
> > With cancel_work_sync() you know what locks the work item is going to
> > take, since it's your work item. With flush_scheduled_work() you have
> > no idea what locks will be needed by the items on the queue. They
> > could come from anywhere.
>
> True, but what use is that if you don't know your call chain and the locks
> it takes.
Okay, clearly you have to know something about your call chain. The
comment should be toned down a little bit.
Alan Stern
--
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