Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:00:46 +0530 | From | Gautham R Shenoy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/2] fix flush_workqueue() vs CPU_DEAD race |
| |
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:26:57PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > 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.
You are right. They don't depend on each other.
The intention behind introducing CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE and CPU_LOCK_RELEASE was to have a standard place where the subsystems could acquire/release the "cpu hotplug protection" mutex in the cpu_hotplug callback function.
The same can be acheived by acquiring these mutexes in CPU_UP_PREPARE/CPU_DOWN_PREPARE etc.
This is true for every subsystem that is cpu-hotplug aware.
> Oleg. >
Thanks and Regards gautham. -- Gautham R Shenoy Linux Technology Center IBM India. "Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain, because Freedom is priceless!" - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |