On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:22:37AM +0100, Harald Geyer wrote: > Mark Brown writes:
> > detail. I'd expect to see some words describing the situations where it > > can be used or something, both the name and the lack of any information > > about issues suggest it's the default thing and will work safely. > It was obvious enough for me, so that I proposed a new function > instead of just switching the regulator code from queue_delayed_work() > to mod_delayed_work(). If it's not obvious to you, I suggest that > you supply a patch improving the documentation. I'd need to figure out exactly what the restrictions are and like I say the name of the function itself is confusing, I suspect because it predates SMP. > > I suspect people are just using mod_delayed_work(), not realising that > > there are restrictions. I'm thinking that perhaps it should be fixed to > > be safe for calling from different contexts and a new function with the > > existing behaviour added, that seems less error prone. > As I already wrote in my last message: To go that path means to review > 107 uses of mod_delayed_work(). Maybe you have somebody you can assign > that task to? Actually yes, though not immediately. Another option is to just rename the current function and all the callers en masse then add a new, safe mod_delayed_work().
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
