Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Milan Broz
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 7:40 am

Torsten Kaiser wrote:

Ok, then I have question: Is the following pseudocode correct
(and problem is in lock validation which checks something
already initialized for another queue) or reusing work_struct
is not permitted from inside called work function ?

(Note comment in code "It is permissible to free the struct
work_struct from inside the function that is called from it".)

struct work_struct work;
struct workqueue_struct *a, *b;

do_b(*work) 
{
	/* do something else */
}

do_a(*work)
{
	/* do something */
	INIT_WORK(&work, do_b);
	queue_work(b, &work);
}


INIT_WORK(&work, do_a);
queue_work(a, &work);

Milan
--
mbroz@redhat.com
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Torsten Kaiser, (Mon Nov 19, 12:23 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Nov 19, 12:56 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Milan Broz, (Tue Nov 20, 7:40 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Alasdair G Kergon, (Tue Nov 20, 4:36 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Torsten Kaiser, (Fri Nov 23, 3:21 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Torsten Kaiser, (Fri Nov 23, 3:42 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Alasdair G Kergon, (Fri Nov 23, 8:49 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Alasdair G Kergon, (Fri Nov 23, 9:03 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Alasdair G Kergon, (Fri Nov 23, 9:13 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Torsten Kaiser, (Fri Nov 23, 9:57 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep, Herbert Xu, (Fri Nov 23, 11:38 pm)