Hello,

On 04/28/2010 09:02 AM, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
quoted text
>> 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.

quoted text
> 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
--
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/