From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: Getting the new RxRPC patches upstream Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:10:12 +0100 Message-ID: <5461.1177488612@redhat.com> References: <20070424193404.GA5042@tv-sign.ru> <29341.1176975158@redhat.com> <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> 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: Oleg Nesterov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:58120 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161706AbXDYIKk (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 04:10:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070424193404.GA5042@tv-sign.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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. 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. David