Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932071AbWLQRch (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:32:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932080AbWLQRch (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:32:37 -0500 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:52987 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932071AbWLQRcg (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:32:36 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:32:04 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Al Viro , David Howells , "David S. Miller" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] fallout from atomic_long_t patch Message-ID: <20061217173201.GA31675@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20061217105907.GE17561@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.7.5 (2ka.mipt.ru [0.0.0.0]); Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:32:15 +0300 (MSK) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1341 Lines: 38 On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:24:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds (torvalds@osdl.org) wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote: > > - if (likely(!test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING, > > - &__cbq->work.work.management) && > > + if (likely(!work_pending(&__cbq->work.work) && > > That should properly be > > if (likely(!delayed_work_pending(&__cbq->work) && ... > > and why the heck was it doing that open-coded int he first place? > > HOWEVER, looking even more, why is that thing a "delayed work" at all? All > the queuing seems to happen with a timeout of zero.. > > So I _think_ that the proper patch is actually the following, but somebody > who knows and uses the connector thing should double-check. Please? Delayed work was used to play with different timeouts and thus allow to smooth performance peaks, but then I dropped that idea, so timeout is always zero. I posted similar patch today to netdev@, which directly used work_pending instead of delayed_work_pending(), but if you will figure this out itself, I'm ok with proposed patch. > Linus -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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/