On 04/25, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 01:50:34AM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > del_timer_sync() buys nothing for cancel_delayed_work(), but it is less > > efficient since it locks the timer unconditionally, and may wait for the > > completion of the delayed_work_timer_fn(). > > I'm not sure what is the main aim of this patch.
optimization > It seems this > change cannot do any harm, but anyway it could change a few > things, e.g. with current version of cancel_rearming_delayed_work > some flush_workqueue could be done needlessly, before the work > is queued from timer. I don't think so... Could you clarify? > It's not a big deal here, but if anybody > did something like this without loop - it could matter. > > So, probably a lot of current code should be checked, before > applying and I doubt the gain is worth of this. Maybe, for > safety, make this with new name as an alternative and > deprecate the current version? This change should not make any visible difference for the callers, otherwise it is buggy. 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/