On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 09:03:28 AM Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Rafael. > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:57:20PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 05:57:06 PM Tejun Heo wrote: > > > There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending > > > before queueing, flushing or cancelling it. Most uses are unnecessary > > > and quite a few of them are buggy. > > > > Is the particular one you're removing from domain.c buggy? > > It's a bit difficult to tell without understanding the code base but > from quick glancing it looks like it could be. The queueing and > actual excution don't grab the same lock, so there doesn't seem to be > anything work_pending() returning %true for a work item which already > started executing. Even if the bug is there, it's likely to be very > difficult to trigger tho, so I wouldn't consider it an urgent fix.
OK, so I'd generally prefer changelogs like this: "There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item is pending before queueing, flushing or cancelling it, so remove work_pending() tests used in those cases." If that's fine with you, I'll queue up [16/25] and [11/25] for v3.9 with the above as the changelog. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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/
