On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 07:29:53PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/26, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... > > > This change should not make any visible difference for the callers, > > > otherwise it is buggy. > > > > IMHO, there is the same visible difference, > > as between del_timer and del_timer_sync. > > Jarek, please, could you be more explicite ? del_timer() and > del_timer_sync() are different in many ways. What exactly will > impact the user of cancel_delaye_work ?
OK, I changed my mind. Now, I think it's very probable this should matter... According to workqueue.h: > /* > * Kill off a pending schedule_delayed_work(). Note that the work callback > * function may still be running on return from cancel_delayed_work(). Run > * flush_workqueue() or cancel_work_sync() to wait on it. > */ > static inline int cancel_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *work) So, we can do something like this: cancel_delayed_work(dwork); flush_workqueue(wq); kfree(some_obj_used_by_dwork_func); And this is enough to work with not rearming work. But no more after this patch... So, I think, your proposal should be alternative version, and current version should stay, so we have a choice. Just like del_timer and del_timer_sync. Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
