Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   "Prakhya, Sai Praneeth" <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC:     "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lee Chun-Yi <jlee@suse.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>,
        Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org>,
        "Neri, Ricardo" <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        "Matt Fleming" <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 2/3] efi: Introduce efi_queue_work() to queue any
 efi_runtime_service() on efi_rts_wq
Thread-Topic: [PATCH V3 2/3] efi: Introduce efi_queue_work() to queue any
 efi_runtime_service() on efi_rts_wq
Thread-Index: AQHT8XrbhGhvSb7r8EKxY2QzcAy/FKQ70YcAgAB8rzA=
Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 22:44:46 +0000
Message-ID: <FFF73D592F13FD46B8700F0A279B802F392AE61C@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1526958784-14688-1-git-send-email-sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
 <1526958784-14688-3-git-send-email-sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
 <20180522073618.GN12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180522073618.GN12198@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.0.200.100
dlp-reaction: no-action
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 08:13:03PM -0700, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> > +	/*								\
> > +	 * queue_work() returns 0 if work was already on queue,         \
> > +	 * _ideally_ this should never happen.                          \
> > +	 */								\
> > +	if (queue_work(efi_rts_wq, &efi_rts_work.work))
> 	\
> > +		flush_work(&efi_rts_work.work);
> 	\
> 
> Since you're _always_ going to wait for it, it is _much_ cheaper to put a
> completion in your actual work and wait for that.

Sure! I will change it.
I also noticed that flush_work() in turn calls wait_for_completion().

Will also wait for a couple of days before posting V4.

Regards,
Sai