[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:0.030 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site