From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031814AbdEXUCB (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2017 16:02:01 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f169.google.com ([209.85.161.169]:34787 "EHLO mail-yw0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031709AbdEXUBt (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 May 2017 16:01:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:01:41 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Alex Naidis Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Implement delayed_work_busy() Message-ID: <20170524200141.GM24798@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1495582493-10069-1-git-send-email-alex.naidis@linux.com> <20170524151154.GD24798@htj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Alex. On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:58:19PM +0200, Alex Naidis wrote: > Yeah, I agree, it is wrong to rely on work_busy() providing correct data. > However sometimes it is useful to have an indicator like this to at least > catch some cases where requeuing work would be obsolete. > This applies for delayed work too. Can you elaborage on "requeueing work would be obsolate" a bit? Thanks. -- tejun