[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120906165145.GE29092@google.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:51:45 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11 V5] workqueue: Add @bind arguement back without
change any thing
Hello, Lai.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 09:04:06AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > This doesn't change anything. You're just moving the test to the
> > caller with comments there explaining how it won't change even if
> > gcwq->lock is released. It seems more confusing to me. The flag is
> > still protected by manager_mutex. How is this an improvement?
> >
>
> Some other bit of gcwq->flags is accessed(modified) without manager_mutex.
> making gcwq->flags be accessed only form gcwq->lock C.S. will help the reviewer.
>
> I don't like adding special things/code when not-absolutely-required.
I really fail to see this. The flag has to stay stable while
manage_mutex is held no matter where you test it. It doesn't make any
it any more readable whether you test it inside gcwq->lock with the
comment saying "this won't change while manager_mutex is held" or just
test it while manager_mutex is held. It is a synchronization oddity
no matter what and as long as it's well documented, I don't really see
the point in the change.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists