On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> Why do we need ->wbuf_queued, anyway? It's not as if queue_delayed_work()
> wouldn't do the right thing - if the sucker already has
> WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT
> set it'll simply do nothing. And it won't spend much time finding that
> out - in fact
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 01:15:45PM -0400, Jeff Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:06:12PM -0400, Jeff Harris wrote:
> >
> > > + spin_lock(&c->wbuf_dwork_lock);
> > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&c->wbuf_dwork);
> >
> > Umm...
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:06:12PM -0400, Jeff Harris wrote:
>
> > + spin_lock(&c->wbuf_dwork_lock);
> > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&c->wbuf_dwork);
>
> Umm... Usually ..._sync in function name is a sign of potential sleeper,
> and calli
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:06:12PM -0400, Jeff Harris wrote:
> + spin_lock(&c->wbuf_dwork_lock);
> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&c->wbuf_dwork);
Umm... Usually ..._sync in function name is a sign of potential sleeper,
and calling those under a spinlock is a bad idea.
And looking at the de
A JFFS2 filesystem sync cancels the write buffering dirty work and performs
the flush manually. However, the flag which indicates that the work is active
is not reset. Thus, if a sync happens while the work is pending, the flag
will never be reset resulting in future work never being started. Th
5 matches
Mail list logo
