Hello, Lai. On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 06:09:38PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > - if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS) > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex)) > > return ret; > > > > - pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS; > > > if mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_mutex) fails, it does not mean > the pool is managing workers. (although current code does). > so I recommend to keep POOL_MANAGING_WORKERS.
So, that's the intention. It's gonna be used during pool destruction and we want all the workers to think that the pool is being managed and it's safe to proceed. > I suggest that you reuse assoc_mutex for your purpose(later patches). > (and rename assoc_mutex back to manager_mutex) They are different. assoc_mutex makes the workers wait for the managership, which shouldn't happen during pool destruction. We want the workers to assume that the pool is managed which is what manager_mutex achieves. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
