On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, James Bottomley wrote: > > If we have to wait for an old target to disappear, instead of > > calling flush_scheduled_work() the patch calls > > schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1). After all, whatever is > > pinning the old target might not have anything to do with a > > workqueue. Besides, flush_scheduled_work() is prone to > > deadlocks and should never be used by drivers. > > I don't really buy this; it's not (yet) a documented restriction of > flush_scheduled_work() and we have a few drivers using it. It only > deadlocks if you call it from a running workqueue. Since you are so opposed to this patch, I will drop it from the series. You didn't comment on any of the first three patches in the series; does that mean they are acceptable as is? And what about the following patches? I'll redo them based on omitting 4/7; are there any parts of them you don't like? Alan Stern -- 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
