Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:26:57 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       dipankar@in.ibm.com, vatsa@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] fix flush_workqueue() vs CPU_DEAD race
Message-ID: <20070103172657.GA1597@tv-sign.ru>
References: <20061230161031.GA101@tv-sign.ru> <20070102162727.9ce2ae2b.akpm@osdl.org> <20070103140459.GA12620@in.ibm.com> <20070103151704.GA28195@in.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070103151704.GA28195@in.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1050
Lines: 27

On 01/03, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:34:59PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > 
> > > handle-cpu_lock_acquire-and-cpu_lock_release-in-workqueue_cpu_callback.patch
> > 
> > Again, this one ensures that workqueue_mutex is taken/released on
> > CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE/CPU_LOCK_RELEASE events in the cpuhotplug callback
> > function. So this one is required, unless it conflicts with what Oleg
> > has posted. Will check that out tonite.
> 
> We would still be needing this patch as it's complementing what Oleg has
> posted.

I thought that these patches don't depend on each other, flush_work/workueue
don't care where cpu-hotplug takes workqueue_mutex, in CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE or in
CPU_UP_PREPARE case (or CPU_DEAD/CPU_LOCK_RELEASE for unlock).

Could you clarify? Just curious.

Oleg.

-
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/