Hello, On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:29:32PM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote: > On 06.03.2017 23:22, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I don't think it's a matter of "fixing" the existing > > mod_delayed_work(). What the new function is implementing wouldn't > > fit use cases where the timeout should only be shortened (IIRC, > > writeback code does that). > > > > I'm not against adding new interface to handle it better but I think > > it makes more sense to add both directions. How about adding > > expedite_delayed_work_on() and postpone_delayed_work_on()? > > I think such a function should only be added if there is actually > code using it. So I'd wait for the survey of existing mod_delayed_work() > users Mark has promised to actually find some bugs that would be fixed > by the function before adding it.
I clearly remember writing code to work around that. Unfortunately, I can't find it right now. :( Note that these cases may use cancel, update timeout, requeue sequence rather then mod_delayed_work(). But yeah, we can add the other direction when we find and can convert the users. > The names you are proposing feel less clear to me then mod_fwd/mod_bwd, > but english is not my native tongue, so my feeling is probably no > strong evidence ... :) Forward and backward aren't necessarily time related. It can be interpreted as relative position from now too - pulling a work item forward or pushing it backward. The orientation isn't explicit in the name. Thanks. -- tejun
