On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 02:39:59PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 03:00:07 am Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 03:31:20PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > > But it's still nasty to use half an API. If it were a few places I would > > > have open-coded it with a comment, or wrapped it. As it is, I don't think > > > that would be a win. > > > > So would it help to have a rcu_read_lock_workqueue() and > > rcu_read_unlock_workqueue() that checked nesting and whether they were > > actually running in the context of a workqueue item? Or did you have > > something else in mind? Or am I misjudging the level of sarcasm in > > your reply? ;-) > > You read correctly. If we get a second user, creating an API makes sense. Makes sense to me as well. Which does provide some time to come up with a primitive designed to answer the question "Am I currently executing in the context of a workqueue item?". ;-) Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
