Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:18:28 +0200 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/8] PM: Add suspend blocking work. |
| |
Hello,
On 04/28/2010 09:02 AM, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> Maybe work->active can be an atomic_t and the lock can be removed? > > I need the spinlock to prevent the work from getting re-queued before > suspend_unblock.
OIC.
> I'm not sure what the best terminology is here, but cancel_work_sync() > only waits for work running on all the cpu-workqueues of the last > workqueue. So, if the caller queued the work on more than one > workqueue, suspend_blocking_work_destroy does not ensure that the > suspend_blocking_work structure is not still in use (it should trigger > the WARN_ON though).
Right, I was thinking about different cpu_workqueues and yeah, the terminology gets pretty confusing.
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Thanks.
-- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |