Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1587170
| From | Harald Geyer <harald@ccbib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() |
| Date | 2017-02-24 00:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <teaZI-8es-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tdJPP-5LC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tdJPQ-5LC-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tdLoC-73y-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <te5GF-4ww-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Mark Brown writes: > > > The obvious question here, especially in the case of > > > mod_delayed_work(), is why not fix the existing functions to have > > > the expected behaviour? > > > AFAICS the existing functions behave as documented. I don't feel > > to be an authority to decide that the documented behaviour is not > > right. Actually I think that what mod_delayed_work() does, is a valid > > operation, even if many current users probably don't want it. > > It is *very* non-obvious that mod_delayed_work() will have a problem > from the documentation, there's "mod_delayed_work_on() on local CPU" > as the body of the description but honestly I'm struggling to tell if > that's even there intentionally or anything other than an implementation > detail. I'd expect to see some words describing the situations where it > can be used or something, both the name and the lack of any information > about issues suggest it's the default thing and will work safely. It was obvious enough for me, so that I proposed a new function instead of just switching the regulator code from queue_delayed_work() to mod_delayed_work(). If it's not obvious to you, I suggest that you supply a patch improving the documentation. > > I was suprised when I found that no function like > > mod_fwd_delayed_work() existed, so you have a point there. > > I suspect people are just using mod_delayed_work(), not realising that > there are restrictions. I'm thinking that perhaps it should be fixed to > be safe for calling from different contexts and a new function with the > existing behaviour added, that seems less error prone. As I already wrote in my last message: To go that path means to review 107 uses of mod_delayed_work(). Maybe you have somebody you can assign that task to? Harald -- If you want to support my work: see http://friends.ccbib.org/harald/supporting/ or donate via CLAM to xASPBtezLNqj4cUe8MT5nZjthRSEjrRQXN or via peercoin to P98LRdhit3gZbHDBe7ta5jtXrMJUms4p7w
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() Harald Geyer <harald@ccbib.org> - 2017-02-22 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-02-22 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() Harald Geyer <harald@ccbib.org> - 2017-02-22 21:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-02-23 18:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() Harald Geyer <harald@ccbib.org> - 2017-02-24 00:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2017-02-27 14:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work() Harald Geyer <harald@ccbib.org> - 2017-02-27 20:50 +0100
csiph-web