Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Add new function mod_fwd_delayed_work()
From: Harald Geyer
Date: Thu Feb 23 2017 - 18:22:54 EST
Mark Brown writes:
> > > The obvious question here, especially in the case of
> > > mod_delayed_work(), is why not fix the existing functions to have
> > > the expected behaviour?
> > AFAICS the existing functions behave as documented. I don't feel
> > to be an authority to decide that the documented behaviour is not
> > right. Actually I think that what mod_delayed_work() does, is a valid
> > operation, even if many current users probably don't want it.
> It is *very* non-obvious that mod_delayed_work() will have a problem
> from the documentation, there's "mod_delayed_work_on() on local CPU"
> as the body of the description but honestly I'm struggling to tell if
> that's even there intentionally or anything other than an implementation
> detail. I'd expect to see some words describing the situations where it
> can be used or something, both the name and the lack of any information
> about issues suggest it's the default thing and will work safely.
It was obvious enough for me, so that I proposed a new function
instead of just switching the regulator code from queue_delayed_work()
to mod_delayed_work(). If it's not obvious to you, I suggest that
you supply a patch improving the documentation.
> > I was suprised when I found that no function like
> > mod_fwd_delayed_work() existed, so you have a point there.
> I suspect people are just using mod_delayed_work(), not realising that
> there are restrictions. I'm thinking that perhaps it should be fixed to
> be safe for calling from different contexts and a new function with the
> existing behaviour added, that seems less error prone.
As I already wrote in my last message: To go that path means to review
107 uses of mod_delayed_work(). Maybe you have somebody you can assign
that task to?
If you want to support my work:
or donate via CLAM to xASPBtezLNqj4cUe8MT5nZjthRSEjrRQXN
or via peercoin to P98LRdhit3gZbHDBe7ta5jtXrMJUms4p7w