Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_work: Fix racy check on work pending flag

2012-10-30 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 16:35 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Work claiming semantics require this operation > to be SMP-safe. > > So we want a strict ordering between the data we > want the work to handle and the flags that describe > the work state such that either we claim and we enqueue >

[PATCH 1/2] irq_work: Fix racy check on work pending flag

2012-10-30 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
Work claiming semantics require this operation to be SMP-safe. So we want a strict ordering between the data we want the work to handle and the flags that describe the work state such that either we claim and we enqueue the work that will see our data or we fail the claim but the CPU where the

[PATCH 1/2] irq_work: Fix racy check on work pending flag

2012-10-30 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
Work claiming semantics require this operation to be SMP-safe. So we want a strict ordering between the data we want the work to handle and the flags that describe the work state such that either we claim and we enqueue the work that will see our data or we fail the claim but the CPU where the

Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq_work: Fix racy check on work pending flag

2012-10-30 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 16:35 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: Work claiming semantics require this operation to be SMP-safe. So we want a strict ordering between the data we want the work to handle and the flags that describe the work state such that either we claim and we enqueue the work