Hello, On 07/28/2010 12:48 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > I'm unsure how flush_work operates under these conditions. E.g. in > workqueue.c, this seems to work by keeping a pointer to current > workqueue in the work. But what prevents us from destroying the > workqueue when work might not be running? In cmwq, work points to the gcwq it was on, which keeps track of all the works in progress, so flushing work which is on a destroyed workqueue should be fine, but in the original implementation, it would end up accessing freed memory. > Is this currently broken if you use multiple workqueues > for the same work? If yes, I propose we do as I did, > making flush_work get worker pointer, and only flushing > on that worker. The original semantics of workqueue is that flush_work() guarantees that the work has finished executing on the workqueue it was last queued on. Adding @worker to flush_work() is okay, I think. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
