Hello, On 04/28/2010 09:02 AM, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> Maybe work->active can be an atomic_t and the lock can be removed? > > I need the spinlock to prevent the work from getting re-queued before > suspend_unblock. OIC. > I'm not sure what the best terminology is here, but cancel_work_sync() > only waits for work running on all the cpu-workqueues of the last > workqueue. So, if the caller queued the work on more than one > workqueue, suspend_blocking_work_destroy does not ensure that the > suspend_blocking_work structure is not still in use (it should trigger > the WARN_ON though). Right, I was thinking about different cpu_workqueues and yeah, the terminology gets pretty confusing. Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
