[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <43765611.nGGJ409TUC@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:33:07 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/25] PM / Domains: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()
On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 09:03:28 AM Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Rafael.
>
> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:57:20PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, December 21, 2012 05:57:06 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
> > > before queueing, flushing or cancelling it. Most uses are unnecessary
> > > and quite a few of them are buggy.
> >
> > Is the particular one you're removing from domain.c buggy?
>
> It's a bit difficult to tell without understanding the code base but
> from quick glancing it looks like it could be. The queueing and
> actual excution don't grab the same lock, so there doesn't seem to be
> anything work_pending() returning %true for a work item which already
> started executing. Even if the bug is there, it's likely to be very
> difficult to trigger tho, so I wouldn't consider it an urgent fix.
OK, so I'd generally prefer changelogs like this:
"There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item is pending
before queueing, flushing or cancelling it, so remove work_pending()
tests used in those cases."
If that's fine with you, I'll queue up [16/25] and [11/25] for v3.9
with the above as the changelog.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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