lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH(Experimental) 2/4] Revert changes to workqueue.c
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 05:30:10PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Agreed. Note that we don't need the new "del_work". It is always safe to
> use cancel_work_sync() if we know that the workqueue is frozen, it won't
> block. We can also do
>
> if (!cancel_delayed_work())
> cancel_work_sync();
>
> but it is ok to do cancel_work_sync() unconditionally.

Argh ..I should keep referring to recent sources. I didnt see
cancel_work_sync() in my sources (2.6.20-rc4) and hence invented that
del_work()! Anyway thanx for pointing out.

This change will probably let us do CPU_DOWN_PREPARE after
freeze_processes(). However I will keep my fingers crossed on whether it
is really a good idea to send CPU_DOWN/UP_PREPARE after
freeze_processes() until we get more review/testing results.

--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-21 16:57    [W:0.144 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site