Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758667Ab0GUPwc (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:52:32 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:56425 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751872Ab0GUPwb (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:52:31 -0400 Message-ID: <4C471768.5090108@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:51:04 +0200 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100608 Thunderbird/3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Howells CC: Arjan van de Ven , Frederic Weisbecker , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk, dwalker@codeaurora.org, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, florian@mickler.org, andi@firstfloor.org, mst@redhat.com, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND References: <4C4712B4.9040706@kernel.org> <4C470B46.4040604@kernel.org> <7b6bba36-5330-4e27-b7a9-3a4113b6b379@email.android.com> <21485.1279717725@redhat.com> <15189.1279725944@redhat.com> <15482.1279727125@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <15482.1279727125@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1060 Lines: 28 Hello, On 07/21/2010 05:45 PM, David Howells wrote: > That's fine. Better that than risk unexpected reentrance. You could add a > function to allow an executing work item to yield the hash entry to indicate > that the work_item that invoked it has been destroyed, but it's probably not > worth it, and it has scope for mucking things up horribly if used at the wrong > time. Yeah, I agree, it's going too far and can be easily misused. Given that there are very few users which actually do that, I think it would be best to leave it alone. > I presume also that if a work_item being executed on one work queue is queued > on another work queue, then there is no non-reentrancy guarantee (which is > fine; if you don't like that, don't do it). Right, there is no non-reentrancy guarantee. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/