[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120516200147.GD21275@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:01:47 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] floppy: convert to delayed work and single-thread wq
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:57:22PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> > > > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&fd_timeout);
> > > > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&fd_timer);
> > > > + destroy_workqueue(system_nrt_wq);
> > >
> > > Well, *that* doesn't look right.
> > >
> > > I think just a "flush_workqueue()" is in order.
> >
> > System wqs shouldn't be flushed (nothing guarantees that flush will
> > finish in fixed amount of time). We probably should make that
> > explicit by whining when someone tries to flush one of the system wqs.
> > Here, the two cancel_delayed_work_sync() calls should be enough.
>
> Well, then I think this might be an issue for straightforward conversion
> of floppy driver to system_nrt_wq -- see floppy_grab_irq_and_dma().
Hmmm? flush_work() is fine. flush_workqueue() isn't. Am I missing
something?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists