Mark Brown writes: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:22:37AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote: > > Mark Brown writes: > > > > 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'd need to figure out exactly what the restrictions are and like I say > the name of the function itself is confusing, I suspect because it > predates SMP.
I guess you know that, but just to avoid any confusion: The bug in the regulator code is not related to SMP at all. > > > 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? > > Actually yes, though not immediately. Another option is to just rename > the current function and all the callers en masse then add a new, safe > mod_delayed_work(). Okay by me. I'm removing the issue from my todo list and hand it over to you and your minions ... :) thanks, 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
