[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/2] fix flush_workqueue() vs CPU_DEAD race
    On 01/03, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
    > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:34:59PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
    > >
    > > > handle-cpu_lock_acquire-and-cpu_lock_release-in-workqueue_cpu_callback.patch
    > >
    > > Again, this one ensures that workqueue_mutex is taken/released on
    > > CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE/CPU_LOCK_RELEASE events in the cpuhotplug callback
    > > function. So this one is required, unless it conflicts with what Oleg
    > > has posted. Will check that out tonite.
    > We would still be needing this patch as it's complementing what Oleg has
    > posted.

    I thought that these patches don't depend on each other, flush_work/workueue
    don't care where cpu-hotplug takes workqueue_mutex, in CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE or in
    CPU_UP_PREPARE case (or CPU_DEAD/CPU_LOCK_RELEASE for unlock).

    Could you clarify? Just curious.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-01-03 18:29    [W:0.025 / U:75.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site