[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120419152841.GA10553@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:28:41 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Catch more locking problems with
flush_work()
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:25:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> @@ -2513,8 +2513,11 @@ bool flush_work(struct work_struct *work)
> wait_for_completion(&barr.done);
> destroy_work_on_stack(&barr.work);
> return true;
> - } else
> + } else {
> + lock_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map);
> + lock_map_release(&work->lockdep_map);
> return false;
We don't have this annotation when start_flush_work() succeeds either,
right? IOW, would lockdep trigger when an actual deadlock happens?
If not, why not add the acquire/release() before flush_work() does
anything?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists