Re: [PATCH 1/1] introduce __cancel_delayed_work()

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tuesday 01 September 2009 09:09:36 am Roland Dreier wrote:
> 
>  > cancel_delayed_work() has to use del_timer_sync() to guarantee the
>  > timer function is not running after return. But most users doesn't
>  > actually need this, and del_timer_sync() has problems: it is not
>  > useable from interrupt, and it depends on every lock which could
>  > be taken from irq.
>  > 
>  > Introduce __cancel_delayed_work() which calls del_timer() instead.
>  > 
>  > The immediate reason for this patch is
>  > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13757
>  > but hopefully this helper makes sense anyway.
> 
> Thanks, Oleg!
> 
> Andrew -- how do you want to handle this?  This seems to be useful for
> the bug with IB that Oleg linked to, as well as by Dmitry in input, so
> I'm not sure what the best way to merge all this into 2.6.32 is.
> 
> I could take Oleg's patch and the corresponding fix to
> drivers/infiniband through my tree, and merge as early I as I see Linus
> open 2.6.32.  That leaves Dmitry to wait on it (and possibly causes
> problems in -next with tree ordering) though.  But I don't see any way
> to get the number of cross-tree dependencies below 1... (unless maybe
> Dmitry can take the identical workqueue patch into his tree and trust
> git to sort it out?)

I wonder if Linus would not just take it in 31 - it is a completely
new function with no current users (but users will surely follow) so
introducing regression is highly unlikely... That would resolve all
inter-tree dependencies.

Otherwise we'll have to leave our fate in the hands of git ;)

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/