Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:22:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:22:44 -0400 Received: from blowme.phunnypharm.org ([65.207.35.140]:26893 "EHLO blowme.phunnypharm.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:22:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 22:28:52 -0400 From: Ben Collins To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5 Problem Report Status Message-ID: <20021023022852.GK536@phunnypharm.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1145 Lines: 32 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > open 21 Oct 2002 oops in ieee1394 > 74. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103519819428268&w=2 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh this is a real ass biter. I have a workqueue that I setup once. Same data, same function, it never changes. Every so often I call schedule_work() for the task. Is queue_task() not reentrant? IOW, can I not schedule work that was already scheduled similar to how tasklets worked? Also, after the task has been run, does the workqueue struct's list member not get cleared? I'm a bit confused by this, as I expected behavior similar to before. Ben -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/ - 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/