On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 19:31:57 -0700 Allen wrote: > > > In the context of of the driver, the conversion from tasklet_enable() > > > to enable_and_queue_work() is correct because the callback function > > > associated with the work item is designed to be safe even if there > > > is no immediate work to process. The callback function can handle > > > being invoked in such situations without causing errors or undesirable > > > behavior. This makes the workqueue approach a suitable and safe > > > replacement for the current tasklet mechanism, as it provides the > > > necessary flexibility and ensures that the work item is properly > > > scheduled and executed. > > > > Fewer words, clearer indication that you read the code would be better > > for the reviewer. Like actually call out what in the code makes it safe. > > > Okay. > > Just to be clear -- conversions to enable_and_queue_work() will require > > manual inspection in every case. > > Attempting again. > > The enable_and_queue_work() only schedules work if it is not already > enabled, similar to how tasklet_enable() would only allow a tasklet to run > if it had been previously scheduled. > > In the current driver, where we are attempting conversion, enable_work() > checks whether the work is already enabled and only enables it if it > was disabled. If no new work is queued, queue_work() won't be called. > Hence, the callback is safe even if there's no work. Hm. Let me give you an example of what I was hoping to see for this patch (in addition to your explanation of the API difference): The conversion for oct_priv->droq_bh_work should be safe. While the work is per adapter, the callback (octeon_droq_bh()) walks all queues, and for each queue checks whether the oct->io_qmask.oq mask has a bit set. In case of spurious scheduling of the work - none of the bits should be set, making the callback a noop.
