[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180821172711.GR3978217@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:27:11 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: skip lockdep wq dependency in
cancel_work_sync()
Hello, Johannes.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > But this can lead to a deadlock. I'd much rather err on the side of
> > discouraging complex lock dancing around ordered workqueues, no?
>
> What can lead to a deadlock?
Oh not this particular case, but I was wondering whether we'd be
missing legitimate possible deadlock cases by skipping lockdep for all
cancel_work_sync()'s as they can actually flush.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists