On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 16:16 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:41:52PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Custom workqueue is not strictly needed, but it assure all works will > > > run short after schedule. Common workqueue can not give us such guarantees, > > > as other driver/subsystem can schedule own work, possibly slow, which > > > can block start of our work for long time. > > > > I believe that's no longer true, with Tejun's workqueue rewrite that > > just got into mainline. > > Good. However I still think having separate workqueue for scanning is clean > and consistent solution, I prefer it over schedule_work() ... and want > that patch backport to RHEL6 2.6.32 where we do not have such goodies :-) Ah, but Tejun will kill us if we add more workqueues to the current kernel :-) > > > For sure abort_scan and abort_timeout works have to be scheduled on something > > > other than priv->workqueue. I'm queuing all scan works on priv->scan_workqueue > > > for consistency. > > > > Remind me: The reason is that we need to cancel them from within the > > workqueue? But if we're on the same workqueue, it seems like they > > couldn't be running already, so cancel_work_sync() would always cancel > > them? > > Problem is not canceling, but exactly that we can not run new work when > old one does not finish. For example, if queued to priv->workqueue > abort_timeout will not be able run when we are performing iwl_bg_restart. > Will run after iwl_bg_restart finish, we don't want that. Ok ... Not sure I understand. Why do we care about abort_timeout work coming after it? We'd cancel it anyway, when we kill the scan from bg_restart, no? johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
