[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170227125427.3xgdukr4ok472v6c@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:27 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Harald Geyer <harald@...ib.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work()
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:22:37AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:
> > detail. I'd expect to see some words describing the situations where it
> > can be used or something, both the name and the lack of any information
> > about issues suggest it's the default thing and will work safely.
> It was obvious enough for me, so that I proposed a new function
> instead of just switching the regulator code from queue_delayed_work()
> to mod_delayed_work(). If it's not obvious to you, I suggest that
> you supply a patch improving the documentation.
I'd need to figure out exactly what the restrictions are and like I say
the name of the function itself is confusing, I suspect because it
predates SMP.
> > I suspect people are just using mod_delayed_work(), not realising that
> > there are restrictions. I'm thinking that perhaps it should be fixed to
> > be safe for calling from different contexts and a new function with the
> > existing behaviour added, that seems less error prone.
> As I already wrote in my last message: To go that path means to review
> 107 uses of mod_delayed_work(). Maybe you have somebody you can assign
> that task to?
Actually yes, though not immediately. Another option is to just rename
the current function and all the callers en masse then add a new, safe
mod_delayed_work().
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists