[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180309162137.GC2943022@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:21:37 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@...il.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
bcrl@...ck.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
security@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] RCU, workqueue: Implement rcu_work
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 08:29:53AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> I mentioned a subtle use case that user would think it is supported
> since the comment doesn't disallow it.
>
> It is clear that the user expects
> the work must be called at least once after the API returns
> the work must be called after an RCU grace period
>
> But in the case when the user expects the work must be called
> at least once again after "queue_rcu_work() + an RCU grace period",
> the API is not competent to it if the work is queued.
> Although the user can detect it by the return value of
> queue_rcu_work(), the user hardly makes his expectation
> happen by adding appropriate code.
We should definitely document it better but it isn't any different
from delayed_work, and I don't see a reason to deviate.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists