From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: Getting the new RxRPC patches upstream Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:41:45 +0400 Message-ID: <20070425104145.GA83@tv-sign.ru> References: <2969.1176992303@redhat.com> <1101.1177056127@redhat.com> <4713.1177065706@redhat.com> <20070420113805.c4877dc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1355.1177317176@redhat.com> <9767.1177421824@redhat.com> <15160.1177429867@redhat.com> <16575.1177433907@redhat.com> <17966.1177438970@redhat.com> <5461.1177488612@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , David Miller , ebiederm@xmission.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Return-path: Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:46493 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992572AbXDYKm0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 06:42:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5461.1177488612@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 04/25, David Howells wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > Yes sure. Note that this is documented: > > > > /* > > * 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. > > */ > > No, it isn't documented. It says that the *work* callback may be running, but > does not mention the timer callback. However, just looking at the > cancellation function source made it clear that this would wait for the timer > handler to return first. Ah yes, it says nothing about what the returned value means... > However, is it worth just making cancel_delayed_work() a void function and not > returning anything? I'm not sure the return value is very useful. cancel_rearming_delayed_work() needs this, tty_io.c, probably somebody else. Oleg.