On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:54:21 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +void edac_mc_reset_delay_period(int value)
> {
> - /* cancel the current workq request */
> - edac_mc_workq_teardown(mci);
> + struct mem_ctl_info *mci;
> + struct list_head *item;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&mem_ctls_mutex);
> +
> + /* scan the list and turn off all workq timers, doing so under lock
> + */
> + list_for_each(item, &mc_devices) {
> + mci = list_entry(item, struct mem_ctl_info, link);
> +
> + if (mci->op_state == OP_RUNNING_POLL)
> + cancel_delayed_work(&mci->work);
> + }
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&mem_ctls_mutex);
cancel_delayed_work() on its own looks a bit racy. The work could
presently be running on another CPU.
So generally we'll run flush_workqueue() or cancel_work_sync() after the
cancel_delayed_work() to make sure that it has really gone away.
Beware however that you're holding a lock here. If any of the work
functions which can be at mci->work also take mem_ctls_mutex then it is
deadlocky to run flush_workqueue() or cancel_work_sync() while holding that
lock.
-
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/
