RE: FW: avoiding run_workqueue() recursion

From: Anirban Sinha
Date: Wed Jul 15 2009 - 14:52:47 EST


Hi Oleg:

>If we just return silently, we do not flush but hide the problem ?
>And in this can lead to other problems which are very hard to
>trigger/debug.

True. I think flushing is an invalid operation for a thread that is
already walking the work-queue, like keventd. It is inherently bug in
the code somewhere else (may be in a work function?). I liked your idea
of replacing WARN_ON() with BUG_ON() but I do understand that a panic
could be a bigger hammer here. May be we can have some sort of
restrictions or conventions for writing work functions? I don't know.

Ani

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/