Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755627Ab3CUA4m (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:56:42 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:35715 "EHLO mail-la0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755536Ab3CUA4l (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:56:41 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 22267 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 20:56:41 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:56:38 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Workqueue behaviour - Synchronization within submitted work From: Vijay To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 705 Lines: 19 In the new workqueue architecture, I have a question regarding synchronization between different "work" submitted to the same workqueue. For example: * I submit two sets of "work" A and B, to a common driver specific workqueue (W). * Each A and B, meddle with a certain shared data SD. * Am I guaranteed serialized execution of A and B, or should I play safe and use a semaphore (acquire/release) with A and B ? Thanks, Vijay PS: Please CC me in the reply. -- 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/