[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5306B4DF.4000901@hurleysoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:07:27 -0500
From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: laijs@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Chris Boot <bootc@...tc.net>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] firewire: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK
On 02/20/2014 08:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:44:46PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>> +static void fw_device_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>>> +{
>>> + struct fw_device *device = container_of(to_delayed_work(work),
>>> + struct fw_device, work);
>>
>> I think this needs an smp_rmb() here.
>
> The patch is equivalent transformation and the whole thing is
> guaranteed to have gone through pool->lock. No explicit rmb
> necessary.
The spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock) only guarantees completion of
memory operations _before_ the unlock; memory operations which occur
_after_ the unlock may be speculated before the unlock.
IOW, unlock is not a memory barrier for operations that occur after.
>> IOW, the beginning of the work function should act like a barrier in
>> the same way that queue_work_on() (et. al.) already does.
>
> workqueue already has enough barriers; otherwise, the whole kernel
> would have crumbled long time ago.
See above.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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