On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 01:53:57PM -0700, dbasehore . wrote: > It will still be at least be pending after the specified time has > passed. I'm proposing that we still set the timer. The difference is > that there is a possibility the work will already be pending when the > timer goes off. There will still at least be an execution after the > given time has past. We could still remove the work in the workqueue > from the timer function, but this would make the mod_delayed_work not > race with any work that was scheduled for immediate execution > previously. I really don't see what you're suggesting happening. Managing work item pending status is already extremely delicate and I'd like to keep all the paths which can share pending state management to do so. You're suggesting introducing a new pending state where a work item may be pending in two different places which will also affect cancel and flushing for rather dubious benefit. If you can write up a patch which isn't too complicated, let's talk about it, but I'm likely to resist any significant amount of extra complexity coming from it. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
