Re: [PATCH 1/3] rename cancel_rearming_delayed_work() to cancel_delayed_work_sync()

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 07:36:29PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Imho, the current naming of cancel_xxx workqueue functions is very confusing.
> 
> 	cancel_delayed_work()
> 	cancel_rearming_delayed_work()
> 	cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue()	// obsolete
> 
> 	cancel_work_sync()
> 
> This looks as if the first 2 functions differ in "type" of their argument which
> is not true any longer, nowadays the difference is the behaviour.
> 
> The semantics of cancel_rearming_delayed_work(dwork) was changed significantly,
> it doesn't require that dwork rearms itself, and cancels dwork synchronously.
> 
> Rename it to cancel_delayed_work_sync(). This matches cancel_delayed_work() and
> cancel_work_sync(). Re-create cancel_rearming_delayed_work() as a simple inline
> obsolete wrapper, like cancel_rearming_delayed_workqueue().

I like the idea of this change, but have some doubt: "_sync"
usually suggests the main difference from "" (or _nosync) is:
_sync waits for something, while _nosync doesn't wait and
instantly returns.

Here it's a bit complicated: cancel_delayed_work() (so nosync),
actually can wait a little too (on del_timer_sync). And
cancel_rearming_delayed_work() is really more universal now,
but still the main difference is this should be used with works
that rearm (at least sometimes). If there is no rearming - no
reason for this function (of course not forbidden too)  - and
maybe it better helps to remember the difference?

So, I would probably prefer cancel_delayed_work_rearming(), but
I don't write/read enough code with this, and I may be wrong.
I'm not agains the current proposal too - maybe one more reason
for sync?

Regards,
Jarek P.