linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET v2 wq/6.10] workqueue: Implement disable/enable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 08:53:22 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	allen.lkml@...il.com, kernel-team@...a.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v2 wq/6.10] workqueue: Implement disable/enable_work()

Hello,

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 06:55:56PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > While I agree that this can be argued either way, keeping the interface
> > congruent with the existing cancel_work_sync() and friends seems a lot more
> > important to me. It can be a bit more confusing for users who are used to
> > tasklet interface but then again we aren't gonna rename cancel_work_sync()
> > to kill_work() and the conversion overhead isn't all that significant or
> > lasting. However, if we break the consnistency within workqueue API, that's
> > a source of lasting confusion.
> 
> I don't want to object to any names. But I'm still thinking of just providing
> disable_work_nosync() rather than disable work().  It will be used
> at only places at most.

Yeah, I get your point. That's the same for cancel_work_sync(). I'll think
about it some more but I'm not sure either way is clearly better here.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun