Messages in this thread | | | From | David Howells <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND | Date | Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:45:25 +0100 |
| |
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> It will unnecessarily stall the execution of the new work if the last > work is still running but nothing will be broken correctness-wise.
That's fine. Better that than risk unexpected reentrance. You could add a function to allow an executing work item to yield the hash entry to indicate that the work_item that invoked it has been destroyed, but it's probably not worth it, and it has scope for mucking things up horribly if used at the wrong time.
I presume also that if a work_item being executed on one work queue is queued on another work queue, then there is no non-reentrancy guarantee (which is fine; if you don't like that, don't do it).
David
| |