On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:24:30AM -0800, Linus Torvalds ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Al Viro wrote:
> > - if (likely(!test_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING,
> > - &__cbq->work.work.management) &&
> > + if (likely(!work_pending(&__cbq->work.work) &&
>
> That should properly be
>
> if (likely(!delayed_work_pending(&__cbq->work) && ...
>
> and why the heck was it doing that open-coded int he first place?
>
> HOWEVER, looking even more, why is that thing a "delayed work" at all? All
> the queuing seems to happen with a timeout of zero..
>
> So I _think_ that the proper patch is actually the following, but somebody
> who knows and uses the connector thing should double-check. Please?
Delayed work was used to play with different timeouts and thus allow to
smooth performance peaks, but then I dropped that idea, so timeout is always
zero.
I posted similar patch today to netdev@, which directly used
work_pending instead of delayed_work_pending(), but if you will figure
this out itself, I'm ok with proposed patch.
> Linus
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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]
