From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: Getting the new RxRPC patches upstream Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:35 +0400 Message-ID: <20070420212835.GA863@tv-sign.ru> References: <20070420.015838.83621529.davem@davemloft.net> <29341.1176975158@redhat.com> <2969.1176992303@redhat.com> <1101.1177056127@redhat.com> <4713.1177065706@redhat.com> <20070420113805.c4877dc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Howells , David Miller , ebiederm@xmission.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070420113805.c4877dc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 04/20, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:41:46 +0100 > David Howells wrote: > > > There are only two non-net patches that AF_RXRPC depends on: > > > > (1) The key facility changes. That's all my code anyway, and shouldn't be a > > problem to merge unless someone else has put some changes in there that I > > don't know about. > > > > (2) try_to_cancel_delayed_work(). I suppose I could use > > cancel_delayed_work() instead, but that's less efficient as it waits for > > the timer completion function to finish. > > There are significant workqueue changes in -mm and I plan to send them > in for 2.6.22. I doubt if there's anything in there which directly > affects cancel_delayed_work(), but making changes of this nature against > 2.6.21 might lead to grief. I think it is better to use cancel_delayed_work(), but change it to use del_timer(). I belive cancel_delayed_work() doesn't need del_timer_sync(). We only care when del_timer() returns true. In that case, if the timer function still runs (possible for single-threaded wqs), it has already passed __queue_work(). Oleg.