On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:31:18AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >It's a pretty dumb thing to do anyway.
>
> Fragile, yes; dumb, no. At least not from the point-of-view of the
> documentation and what the workqueue actually did. But obviously from
> your reaction, unintentional design.
Well, maybe
On 02/18/2014 10:30 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:29:34PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
It never would have occurred to me that you could safely change the
function for a work item that is already scheduled or running.
Especially given that PREPARE_WORK() is just a simple assignme
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:29:34PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >It never would have occurred to me that you could safely change the
> >function for a work item that is already scheduled or running.
> >Especially given that PREPARE_WORK() is just a simple assignment (i.e.
> >no serialisation).
>
>
On 02/17/2014 08:43 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 14:38 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
Since commit a2c1c57be8d9fd5b716113c8991d3d702eeacf77,
workqueue: consider work function when searching for busy work items
work items whose work functions are re-assigned are no longer guarant
On Sat, 2014-02-15 at 14:38 -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> Since commit a2c1c57be8d9fd5b716113c8991d3d702eeacf77,
> workqueue: consider work function when searching for busy work items
> work items whose work functions are re-assigned are no longer guaranteed
> non-reentrancy with the previously as
Since commit a2c1c57be8d9fd5b716113c8991d3d702eeacf77,
workqueue: consider work function when searching for busy work items
work items whose work functions are re-assigned are no longer guaranteed
non-reentrancy with the previously assigned work function. For example,
PREPARE_WORK(&work,
6 matches
Mail list logo
