On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:40 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > But this just adds the WQ_UNBOUND. Dunno, without lock I had several
> > crashes, that for high level of confidence caused by by parallel
> > execution of work items. Once I
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> But this just adds the WQ_UNBOUND. Dunno, without lock I had several
> crashes, that for high level of confidence caused by by parallel
> execution of work items. Once I added this mutex, I couldnt reproduce
> these.
Yes the
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 11:02 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > * Swithced to using a workqueue.
> > Unfortunelly, I still see that workqueue items are executed in parallel
> > I suspect that this happens if one work item sleeps. In this case I
> > don't want other work items to run
Hello,
> * Swithced to using a workqueue.
> Unfortunelly, I still see that workqueue items are executed in parallel
> I suspect that this happens if one work item sleeps. In this case I
> don't want other work items to run too. I fixed this with a mutex, and
> anyway
> it nice to have it
Hi,
I believe that I addressed most(all?) issues raised in the review, thus I
am resending the driver.
Changes from V1:
* Replaced explicit state numbers with enum items.
I agree that code is cleaner this way.
* Swithced to using a workqueue.
Unfortunelly, I still see that workqueue
Hi,
I believe that I addressed most(all?) issues raised in the review, thus I
am resending the driver.
Changes from V1:
* Replaced explicit state numbers with enum items.
I agree that code is cleaner this way.
* Swithced to using a workqueue.
Unfortunelly, I still see that workqueue
Hello,
* Swithced to using a workqueue.
Unfortunelly, I still see that workqueue items are executed in parallel
I suspect that this happens if one work item sleeps. In this case I
don't want other work items to run too. I fixed this with a mutex, and
anyway
it nice to have it to
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 11:02 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
* Swithced to using a workqueue.
Unfortunelly, I still see that workqueue items are executed in parallel
I suspect that this happens if one work item sleeps. In this case I
don't want other work items to run too. I fixed
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
But this just adds the WQ_UNBOUND. Dunno, without lock I had several
crashes, that for high level of confidence caused by by parallel
execution of work items. Once I added this mutex, I couldnt reproduce
these.
Yes the
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 12:40 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 09:34:39PM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
But this just adds the WQ_UNBOUND. Dunno, without lock I had several
crashes, that for high level of confidence caused by by parallel
execution of work items. Once I added
10 matches
Mail list logo
