Re: [PATCH v2.6.36-rc7] init: don't call flush_scheduled_work()from do_initcalls()

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:13:24 +0200
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It's unclear what flush_scheduled_work() in do_initcalls() tries to
> achieve.  The call doesn't make much sense - there already are
> multiple system workqueues which aren't affected by
> flush_scheduled_wokr() and subsystems are free to create and use their
> own.  Ordering requirements are and should be expressed explicitly.
> 
> Drop the call to prepare for deprecation and removal of
> flush_scheduled_work().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> If no one objects, I'll route this through wq tree.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>  init/main.c |    3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: work/init/main.c
> ===================================================================
> --- work.orig/init/main.c
> +++ work/init/main.c
> @@ -778,9 +778,6 @@ static void __init do_initcalls(void)
> 
>  	for (fn = __early_initcall_end; fn < __initcall_end; fn++)
>  		do_one_initcall(*fn);
> -
> -	/* Make sure there is no pending stuff from the initcall sequence */
> -	flush_scheduled_work();
>  }
> 

hm, that predates the initial 2002 BK tree.

If some initcall function leaves a work scheduled and doesn't flush it
then free_initmem() can come along and pull the rug out from under its
feet.  Then you will own both pieces :)

If you really don't like people sending you angry emails then I suppose
you could add some warning here if a scheduled work is pending, and
that the scheduled work's callback existed in init.text memory.  Which
would be a bit of a pain to implement.

Oh well.  The oops traces will make it fairly clear what happened.
--
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/