lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] rapidio/tsi721: Replace flush_scheduled_work() with flush_work().
From
On 2022/09/26 2:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 14:11:25 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>> Like commit c4f135d643823a86 ("workqueue: Wrap flush_workqueue() using a
>> macro") says, flush_scheduled_work() is dangerous and will be forbidden.
>> We are on the way for removing all flush_scheduled_work() callers from
>> the kernel, and this patch is for removing flush_scheduled_work() call
>> from tsi721 driver.
>>
>> Since "struct tsi721_device" is per a device struct, I assume that
>> tsi721_remove() needs to wait for only two works associated with that
>> device. Therefore, wait for only these works using flush_work().
>>
>> --- a/drivers/rapidio/devices/tsi721.c
>> +++ b/drivers/rapidio/devices/tsi721.c
>> @@ -2941,7 +2941,8 @@ static void tsi721_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>
>> tsi721_disable_ints(priv);
>> tsi721_free_irq(priv);
>> - flush_scheduled_work();
>> + flush_work(&priv->idb_work);
>> + flush_work(&priv->pw_work);
>> rio_unregister_mport(&priv->mport);
>
> Why not use cancel_work[_sync](), as the flush_scheduled_work() comment
> recommends?
>

Alan Stern suggested to use cancel_work_sync() in
commit eef6a7d5c2f38ada ("workqueue: warn about flush_scheduled_work()")
and Tejun Heo suggested to use flush_work() in
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YjivtdkpY+reW0Gt@slm.duckdns.org .

Is there some reason to prefer one over the other?
I think that user-visible results between flush_work() and cancel_work_sync()
are the same because both wait until work completes.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-26 14:28    [W:0.060 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site