From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755568Ab2DSP2r (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:28:47 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]:49188 "EHLO mail-pz0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753783Ab2DSP2q (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:28:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:28:41 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Stephen Boyd Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Ben Dooks Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] workqueue: Catch more locking problems with flush_work() Message-ID: <20120419152841.GA10553@google.com> References: <1334805958-29119-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1334805958-29119-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 08:25:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > @@ -2513,8 +2513,11 @@ bool flush_work(struct work_struct *work) > wait_for_completion(&barr.done); > destroy_work_on_stack(&barr.work); > return true; > - } else > + } else { > + lock_map_acquire(&work->lockdep_map); > + lock_map_release(&work->lockdep_map); > return false; We don't have this annotation when start_flush_work() succeeds either, right? IOW, would lockdep trigger when an actual deadlock happens? If not, why not add the acquire/release() before flush_work() does anything? Thanks. -- tejun