[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YXBBSrlOmAU8+J5w@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 06:18:18 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: doc: Call out the non-reentrance conditions
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 01:40:21PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> * A work item instance will not be processed by multiple workers at the
> same time, i.e. it's non-reentrant, so requeuing the same instance of
> a work item is safe and not racy. Operations considered as changing
> the work item to a different instance are: 1) change the work
> function, 2) queue the work item to a different workqueue, or 3)
> reinitiate the work item. The non-reentrance guarantee doesn't hold
> for different work item instances.
Yeah, I prefer it to be described this way but it's not a strong opinion.
Looks good to me either way.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists