On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> But running flush_scheduled_work() from within dev_close() is a very
> sensible thing to do, and dev_close is called under rtnl_lock().
> davem is -> thattaway ;)
And when within dev_close() there is quite a chance there is
linkwatch_event() somewhere in the event queue already. ;-)
> Ah. The point is that the phy code doesn't want to flush _all_ pending
> callbacks. It only wants to flush its own one. And its own one doesn't
> take rtnl_lock().
>
> IOW, the phy code has no interest in running some random other subsystem's
> callback - it just wants to run its own. Hence no deadlock.
Both are true. It's linkwatch_event() that's somewhere in the queue
already that makes the trouble here.
> Maybe the lesson here is that flush_scheduled_work() is a bad function.
> It should really be flush_this_work(struct work_struct *w). That is in
> fact what approximately 100% of the flush_scheduled_work() callers actually
> want to do.
There may be cases where flush_scheduled_work() is indeed needed, but
likely outside drivers, and I agree such a specific call would be useful
and work here.
Maciej
-
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]
