linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] PM: Add suspend blocking 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:	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:18:28 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
CC:	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] PM: Add suspend blocking work.

Hello,

On 04/28/2010 09:02 AM, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> Maybe work->active can be an atomic_t and the lock can be removed?
> 
> I need the spinlock to prevent the work from getting re-queued before
> suspend_unblock.

OIC.

> I'm not sure what the best terminology is here, but cancel_work_sync()
> only waits for work running on all the cpu-workqueues of the last
> workqueue. So, if the caller queued the work on more than one
> workqueue, suspend_blocking_work_destroy does not ensure that the
> suspend_blocking_work structure is not still in use (it should trigger
> the WARN_ON though).

Right, I was thinking about different cpu_workqueues and yeah, the
terminology gets pretty confusing.

Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

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/