On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 09:23:29AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 02/01/17 16:16, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 01:01:35PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > >> Later patches don't want or need to serialize the cancellation of an > >> operation. This patch adds gb_operation_cancel_async() as a simple subset > >> of the existing gb_operation_cancel() sans the synchronous wait on the > >> cancellation queue. > > > > This one is not needed and complicates the interface for no good reason > > (the async suffix also falsely indicates that this function could be > > called from atomic context). > > > > Just cancel synchronously in the delayed worker function you add later > > in the series. > > > > Johan > > > > hmm ... sounds sensible in principle. > > Let me test that out I started reviewing the rest of the series, but got interrupted. Will send more comments on the rest later. > gott nytt år ! God fortsättning! Johan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
