Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754415AbaBUCHe (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:07:34 -0500 Received: from mailout32.mail01.mtsvc.net ([216.70.64.70]:51074 "EHLO n23.mail01.mtsvc.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752394AbaBUCHc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:07:32 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 1362 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:07:32 EST Message-ID: <5306B4DF.4000901@hurleysoftware.com> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 21:07:27 -0500 From: Peter Hurley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Richter , linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Chris Boot , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, target-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] firewire: don't use PREPARE_DELAYED_WORK References: <1392929071-16555-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1392929071-16555-5-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <5306AF8E.3080006@hurleysoftware.com> <20140221015935.GF6897@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20140221015935.GF6897@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-User: 990527 peter@hurleysoftware.com X-MT-ID: 8FA290C2A27252AACF65DBC4A42F3CE3735FB2A4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/20/2014 08:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:44:46PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote: >>> +static void fw_device_workfn(struct work_struct *work) >>> +{ >>> + struct fw_device *device = container_of(to_delayed_work(work), >>> + struct fw_device, work); >> >> I think this needs an smp_rmb() here. > > The patch is equivalent transformation and the whole thing is > guaranteed to have gone through pool->lock. No explicit rmb > necessary. The spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock) only guarantees completion of memory operations _before_ the unlock; memory operations which occur _after_ the unlock may be speculated before the unlock. IOW, unlock is not a memory barrier for operations that occur after. >> IOW, the beginning of the work function should act like a barrier in >> the same way that queue_work_on() (et. al.) already does. > > workqueue already has enough barriers; otherwise, the whole kernel > would have crumbled long time ago. See above. Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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/