linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] usb: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 22 Feb 2014 10:37:55 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	laijs@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] usb: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:14:48AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> Is the cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hub->init_work) call in hub_quiesce()
> going to get confused by all this?

Yeah, you can't cancel a work item which hasn't been initialzed.
Maybe move init of the first work function there?  I don't think it
really matters tho.

> It's worth mentioning that the only reason for the hub_init_func3 stuff
> is, as the comment says, to avoid a long sleep (100 ms) inside a work
> routine.  With all the changes to the work queue infrastructure, maybe
> this doesn't matter so much any more.  If we got rid of it then there
> wouldn't be any multiplexing, and this whole issue would become moot.

I don't really think that'd be necessary.  Just sleeping synchronously
should be fine.  How many threads are we talking about?

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/