[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-K8yaPo632B6wLj@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:25:13 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v2] task_work: Provide means to check if a work is
queued
Le Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 01:43:41PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov a écrit :
> On 02/09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ int task_work_add(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *work,
> > {
> > struct callback_head *head;
> >
> > + work->next = TASK_WORK_DEQUEUED;
>
> Do we really need to do this at the start of task_work_add() ?
>
> If the caller didn't do init_task_work() before and task_work_add()
> returns -EINVAL we probably do not care?
Yes good point. Let me fix that...
>
> Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists