[ adding James ] On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Li Zhong <zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > I have tested your pending patches, they fix the problem here.
Thanks! James, if you get the chance please add: Tested-by: Li Zhong <zh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> ...to the pending set, or I can just resend. Let me know. > But with ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE added for the domains defined on the > stack, I think we lack a function that could wait for all the works in > all domains (however, maybe actually we don't need such an interface). > > Also, I think it's not good to exclude them from > async_synchronize_full() just because they are defined on the stack. ASYNC_DOMAIN can be used to allow on-stack domains to be flushed via async_synchronize_full(). However, if you know ahead of time that your work items do not need to be anonymously flushed and you know the lifetime of your domain ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE + async_synchronize_full_domain() are there to prevent unnecessary entanglements. If for some reason you want to have temporary on stack domains be globally visible I included an async_unregister_domain() routine to make the api complete. It has a comment that using ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE for such domains is preferred. -- Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
