From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: don't use execute_in_process_context() Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:05:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4D09116C.6010508@kernel.org> References: <4CBD95C0.6060302@kernel.org> <4CBD95DC.8000001@kernel.org> <1292194113.2989.9.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D073E9A.3000608@kernel.org> <1292335754.3058.2.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D077CD9.6050907@kernel.org> <1292336798.3058.5.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D078052.3040800@kernel.org> <1292382245.19511.56.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D08E2FF.5090605@kernel.org> <1292428486.4688.180.camel@mulgrave.site> <4D08E624.3020808@kernel.org> <1292433773.4688.278.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1292433773.4688.278.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Linux SCSI List , FUJITA Tomonori , lkml List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Hey, James. On 12/15/2010 06:22 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > Hmm, I suppose the original coding didn't contemplate pre-emption. This > should fix it then, I think (with no alteration to the callsites because > of the encapsulating API). It does assume the function being executed > is local to the file doing the execution, which is true in all current > cases. Yes, it would do, but we were already too far with the existing implementation and I don't agree we need more when replacing it with usual workqueue usage would remove the issue. So, when we actually need them, let's consider that or any other way to do it, please. A core API with only a few users which can be easily replaced isn't really worth keeping around. Wouldn't you agree? Thanks. -- tejun