[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch
    On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:24:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds ( wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:
    > > - if (likely(!test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING,
    > > - &__cbq-> &&
    > > + if (likely(!work_pending(&__cbq-> &&
    > That should properly be
    > if (likely(!delayed_work_pending(&__cbq->work) && ...
    > and why the heck was it doing that open-coded int he first place?
    > HOWEVER, looking even more, why is that thing a "delayed work" at all? All
    > the queuing seems to happen with a timeout of zero..
    > So I _think_ that the proper patch is actually the following, but somebody
    > who knows and uses the connector thing should double-check. Please?

    Delayed work was used to play with different timeouts and thus allow to
    smooth performance peaks, but then I dropped that idea, so timeout is always

    I posted similar patch today to netdev@, which directly used
    work_pending instead of delayed_work_pending(), but if you will figure
    this out itself, I'm ok with proposed patch.

    > Linus

    Evgeniy Polyakov
    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: 2006-12-17 18:35    [W:0.021 / U:56.188 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site