Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-82165-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 08:53:22 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	allen.lkml@gmail.com, kernel-team@meta.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v2 wq/6.10] workqueue: Implement disable/enable_work()
Message-ID: <ZdzeIvXkRidgyHol@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20240221174333.700197-1-tj@kernel.org>
 <CAJhGHyCJS7Pb_5dwTQtcZ25yOVzxFULJEYT4o3id_3xdj32EYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZdcQ1jfOKNTlbB6C@slm.duckdns.org>
 <CAJhGHyAic563hZMLvbQ2X7RsZNmHHEYfh5Lr48cE1LGTUm_K_w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJhGHyAic563hZMLvbQ2X7RsZNmHHEYfh5Lr48cE1LGTUm_K_w@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 06:55:56PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > While I agree that this can be argued either way, keeping the interface
> > congruent with the existing cancel_work_sync() and friends seems a lot more
> > important to me. It can be a bit more confusing for users who are used to
> > tasklet interface but then again we aren't gonna rename cancel_work_sync()
> > to kill_work() and the conversion overhead isn't all that significant or
> > lasting. However, if we break the consnistency within workqueue API, that's
> > a source of lasting confusion.
> 
> I don't want to object to any names. But I'm still thinking of just providing
> disable_work_nosync() rather than disable work().  It will be used
> at only places at most.

Yeah, I get your point. That's the same for cancel_work_sync(). I'll think
about it some more but I'm not sure either way is clearly better here.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun