Re: [PATCHSET] workqueue: implement and use WQ_UNBOUND

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On 07/21/2010 05:45 PM, David Howells wrote:
> That's fine.  Better that than risk unexpected reentrance.  You could add a
> function to allow an executing work item to yield the hash entry to indicate
> that the work_item that invoked it has been destroyed, but it's probably not
> worth it, and it has scope for mucking things up horribly if used at the wrong
> time.

Yeah, I agree, it's going too far and can be easily misused.  Given
that there are very few users which actually do that, I think it would
be best to leave it alone.

> I presume also that if a work_item being executed on one work queue is queued
> on another work queue, then there is no non-reentrancy guarantee (which is
> fine; if you don't like that, don't do it).

Right, there is no non-reentrancy guarantee.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/