James Bottomley wrote:
quoted text
> This still doesn't solve the fundamental corruption problem:
> sdev->event_work has to contain the work entry until the workqueue has
> finished executing it (which is some unspecified time in the future).
> As soon as you drop the sdev->list_lock, the system thinks
> sdev->event_work is available for reuse.  If we fire another event
> before the work queue finished processing the prior event, the queue
> will be corrupted.

I think you're misunderstanding the workqueue code?  You can call 
schedule_work(&sdev->event_work) from anywhere, any time you like, as 
many times as you like.


quoted text
> Also, I think Kristin's initial use of execute_in_user_context() was a
> good call .. if we already have a user context, there's no need to
> bother the workqueue ... some of these events will likely trigger from
> thread backed kernel daemons.

Quite agreed that sdev_evt_notify() might be called from kernel daemons, 
but in general this is a fire-and-forget API that is -likely- to be 
called from interrupt or completion context of many drivers, just like 
scsi_done or other completion APIs.  It is a fundamentally parallel 
interface.

If thread-backed kernel daemons want to use this, it is trivial for them 
to schedule work, then sync.

	Jeff


-
unsubscribe notice
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/