Hello, Rusty. On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:05:11PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > Both places where we call: > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill); > > Do not actually guarantee that vi->refill isn't running, because it > can requeue itself. A 'bool no_more_refill' field seems like the > simplest fix for this, but I don't think it's sufficient. > > Tejun, is this correct? What's the correct way to synchronously stop a > delayed_work which can "schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, HZ/2);" on > itself? cancel_delayed_work_sync() itself should be good enough. It first steals the pending state and then waits for it to finish if in-flight. Queueing itself afterwards becomes noop. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
