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

[Lai Jiangshan]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
>

Ah, yes.

Thanks,
Lai
--
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/