[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100617165655.757d221a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:56:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...cle.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, oleg@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Overview of concurrency managed workqueue
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:25:03 -0700
Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 04:14:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > flush_workqueue() sucks. It's a stupid, accidental,
> > internal-implementation-dependent interface. We should deprecate it
> > and try to get rid of it, migrating to the eminently more sensible
> > flush_work().
> >
> > I guess the first step is to add a dont-do-that checkpatch warning when
> > people try to add new flush_workqueue() calls.
> >
> > 165 instances tree-wide, sigh.
>
> What would the API be for "I want this workqueue emptied before
> I shut this thing down?"
Um, yeah. flush_workqueue() is legitimate. I was thinking of
flush_scheduled_work() - the one which operates on the keventd queue.
--
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