Re: [PATCH 02/13] workqueue: fix work_busy()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 08:06:54PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>@@ -3453,15 +3451,13 @@ unsigned int work_busy(struct work_struct *work)
> >>  {
> >>  	struct worker_pool *pool = get_work_pool(work);
> >>  	unsigned long flags;
> >>-	unsigned int ret = 0;
> >>+	unsigned int ret = work_pending(work) ? WORK_BUSY_PENDING : 0;
> >
> >I'd prefer this as a if() statement.
> >
> >>  	if (!pool)
> >>-		return 0;
> >>+		return ret;
> >
> >I'm a bit confused.  When can we be pending w/o pool?
> >
> 
> grab the pending bits <==time==> really queued
> 			^
> 		this patch considers the work is busy in this time

Given the advisory nature of the function, why do we care?  Is it
needed for later patches?

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/