Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 06:46:23 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: warn about flushing system-wide workqueues
Message-ID: <Yn0538VavQPv+/Ws@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <d34dac10-c12f-8bda-35c4-9cb158781db2@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <a6288570ed3534b0316723061f5604e3871accef.camel@perches.com>
 <6e4ed62e-888b-6e7a-c13d-67656f39ca94@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <738afe71-2983-05d5-f0fc-d94efbdf7634@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <YnQKNea6KWFaWNis@slm.duckdns.org>
 <a0d6b5e4-b9c8-1a43-570f-4c73b0f6fc0c@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a0d6b5e4-b9c8-1a43-570f-4c73b0f6fc0c@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 08:29:07AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2022/05/06 2:32, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Given that we'll need runtime check anyway, why not resurrect the original
> > runtime warning but exempt flush_schedule_work() if that's the only thing
> > remaining right now (using a special flag or whatever)?
> 
> Yes, we will also need runtime check for robustness, for we can't catch usage
> like
> 
> 	struct workqueue_struct *my_wq = alloc_workqueue();
> 	if (!my_wq)
> 		my_wq = system_long_wq;
> 	flush_workqueue(my_wq);
> 
> using compile time checks.
> 
> I found that it is not easy to trigger flush_workqueue() paths. For example,
> several modules are using flush_workqueue() only upon module unloading.

Ah, yeah, good point.

> Therefore, I'm trying to catch obvious flush_workqueue() paths at compile
> time when possible.
> 
> >                                                         If we're sure that
> > we aren't triggering it spuriously, we can ask Andrew to take the warning
> > patch into -mm so that it floats on top of everything else and gets pulled
> > into the trunk during the coming merge window.
> 
> OK, the coming merge window means 5.19.
> 
> The original runtime checking will be used anyway. Is "workqueue: Wrap
> flush_workqueue() using a macro" OK for you as a compile time check?

Sounds good to me.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun