Hello, On 12/15/2010 08:10 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >> Yes, it would do, but we were already too far with the existing >> implementation and I don't agree we need more when replacing it with >> usual workqueue usage would remove the issue. So, when we actually >> need them, let's consider that or any other way to do it, please. >> A core API with only a few users which can be easily replaced isn't >> really worth keeping around. Wouldn't you agree? > > Not really ... since the fix is small and obvious. IMHO, it's a bit too subtle to be a good API. The callee is called under different (locking) context depending on the callsite and I've been already bitten enough times from implicit THIS_MODULEs. Both properties increase possbility of introducing problems which can be quite difficult to detect and reproduce. > Plus now it can't be moved into SCSI because I need the unremovable > call chain. Yes, with the proposed change, it cannot be moved to SCSI. > Show me how you propose to fix it differently first, since we both agree > the initial attempt doesn't work, and we can take the discussion from > there. Given that the structures containing the work items are dynamically allocated, I would introduce a scsi_wq, unconditionally schedule release works on them and flush them before unloading. Please note that workqueues no longer require dedicated threads, so it's quite cheap. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
