Re: [PATCH] cancel_delayed_work: use del_timer() instead of del_timer_sync()

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 07:29:53PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/26, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> > > This change should not make any visible difference for the callers,
> > > otherwise it is buggy.
> > 
> > IMHO, there is the same visible difference,
> > as between del_timer and del_timer_sync.
> 
> Jarek, please, could you be more explicite ? del_timer() and
> del_timer_sync() are different in many ways. What exactly will
> impact the user of cancel_delaye_work ?

OK, I changed my mind. Now, I think it's very probable
this should matter...

According to workqueue.h:
> /*
>  * Kill off a pending schedule_delayed_work().  Note that the work callback
>  * function may still be running on return from cancel_delayed_work().  Run
>  * flush_workqueue() or cancel_work_sync() to wait on it.
>  */
> static inline int cancel_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *work)

So, we can do something like this:

cancel_delayed_work(dwork);
flush_workqueue(wq);
kfree(some_obj_used_by_dwork_func);

And this is enough to work with not rearming work.

But no more after this patch...

So, I think, your proposal should be alternative version,
and current version should stay, so we have a choice.
Just like del_timer and del_timer_sync.

Jarek P.