Alan Stern wrote: ... > Note that the change falls within the bounds of the documented > behavior, in the sense that any code which was originally written > correctly (i.e., in accordance with the documentation) will continue to > work correctly without generating any warnings. ... You are right that there is no comment (or better yet, kerneldoc comment) about what happens if an instance of work_struct is enqueued twice. However, /a/ there is the source and /b/ Corbet, Rubini, Kroah-Hartman: LDD3 describes in detail in an easily understood section how workqueues are to be used. (Workqueues in Linux 2.6.10, that is.) ... > If the > usage is correct then there is no harm in leaving the WARN_ON call where > it is. If the usage is wrong then the call needs to be fixed, and the > maintainer for the subsystem containing the call will soon find out about > it, thanks to the WARN_ON. ... Acceptable on second thought, particularly in light of your new replacement functions with improved semantics of their return value. Although there are cases where the WARN_ON might not go off during a long time, or where an update won't happen in many months despite hundreds of reports at dozens of mailing lists and bugzillas. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-==- =--- ===-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
