Alan Stern wrote:
...
> Note that the change falls within the bounds of the documented
> behavior, in the sense that any code which was originally written
> correctly (i.e., in accordance with the documentation) will continue to
> work correctly without generating any warnings.
...
You are right that there is no comment (or better yet, kerneldoc
comment) about what happens if an instance of work_struct is enqueued
twice. However, /a/ there is the source and /b/ Corbet, Rubini,
Kroah-Hartman: LDD3 describes in detail in an easily understood section
how workqueues are to be used. (Workqueues in Linux 2.6.10, that is.)
...
> If the
> usage is correct then there is no harm in leaving the WARN_ON call where
> it is. If the usage is wrong then the call needs to be fixed, and the
> maintainer for the subsystem containing the call will soon find out about
> it, thanks to the WARN_ON.
...
Acceptable on second thought, particularly in light of your new
replacement functions with improved semantics of their return value.
Although there are cases where the WARN_ON might not go off during a
long time, or where an update won't happen in many months despite
hundreds of reports at dozens of mailing lists and bugzillas.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- =--- ===-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
