[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150309062243.GL13283@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 02:22:43 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Du, Changbin" <changbin.du@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: detect uninitated work_struct and BUG() if
true
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:43:11AM +0000, Du, Changbin wrote:
> From cdebb88ac0fb3f900ef28f28ccb4a12159c295db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Du, Changbin" <changbin.du@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:06:43 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: detect uninitated work_struct and BUG() if true
>
> Recently I encounter a driver issue that caused by missing initializing
> the work_struct. Then the work never get executed and stay in workqueue
> forever. This take me some time to locate the error. This issue can be
> seen early if detect it when queuing a work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Du, Changbin <changbin.du@...el.com>
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index f288493..5c1a5bc 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -1295,6 +1295,9 @@ static void __queue_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
> */
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
>
> + if (!work->func)
> + BUG();
> +
> debug_work_activate(work);
Can't this be part of the debug_work mechanism? I'm a bit wary of
adding essentially arbitrary checks. I'd much prefer if it gets gated
by debug config somehow.
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