From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755936AbcIEMlt (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:41:49 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com ([209.85.220.177]:35614 "EHLO mail-qk0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751245AbcIEMlr (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:41:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:41:39 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Andreas Mohr Cc: Qiao Zhou , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Question] about patch: don't use [delayed_]work_pending() Message-ID: <20160905124139.GC20784@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20160904012939.GA10924@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160904012939.GA10924@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 03:29:39AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote: > Reason: any other [early-boot] invoker of cancel_delayed_work_sync() > would hit the same issue, > without any fix then available locally each. > > This may or may not be intentional. > Just wanted to point it out. idk, invoking a blocking API from early boot is pretty special (as with everything during early boot), so I think it's fine to handle them as execeptions. Thanks. -- tejun