On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:28:03PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: [...] > >> + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->attach_work); > >> + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->usb_charger_attached_work); > >> + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->ac_charger_attached_work); > >> + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->check_usbchgnotok_work); > >> + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->check_vbat_work); > >> + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->kick_wd_work); > >> + > >> + flush_work_sync(&di->usb_link_status_work); > >> + flush_work_sync(&di->ac_work); > >> + flush_work_sync(&di->detect_usb_type_work); > > > > I belive each of these have to be added by the patches that add the > > appropriate work structs. But really, it's better to avoid these many > > delayed work. > > Agreed - on the flip side they were added over multiple patches spanning > many centuries. Tracking all this work down would be impossible as > history was re-written many time over. What would you like to see > happening here ?
Um.. why can't we just fold + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->attach_work); Into "[PATCH 20/57] power: Adds support for legacy USB chargers"? Then + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->usb_charger_attached_work); + flush_delayed_work_sync(&di->ac_charger_attached_work); Into "[PATCH 07/57] power: ab8500_bm: Detect removed charger" etc... That is, at the same time you introduce the work structs, you have to flush them appropriately. For work structs that were already in mainline, you'll have this patch to fixup things. But adding new code with known bugs, and then fixing them in one go is usually not how things should be done (unless there's a good technical reason behind this). Thanks, Anton. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
