On 01/05, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:18:50AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > This? > > This can still lead to the problem spotted by Oleg here: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/30/37 > > and you would need a similar patch he posted there.
preempt_disable() can't prevent cpu_up, but flush_workqueue() doesn't care _unless_ cpu_down also happened meantime (and hence a fresh CPU may have pending work_structs which were moved from a dead CPU). So you are right, we still need the patch above, but I think we don't have new problems with preempt_disable(). I might have missed your point though. Oleg. - 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/
