Re: [PATCH v2] workqueue: Warn when work flush own workqueue

[qianli zhao <zhaoqianligood@gmail.com>]

Markus

Thanks for your suggestion,and sorry for my poor wording.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:00 PM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
>
> > Flushing own workqueue or work self in work context will lead to
> > a deadlock.
>
> I imagine that the wording “or work self” can become clearer another bit.
>
>
> > Catch this incorrect usage and issue a warning when issue happened
>
> * Would you like to mark the end of such a sentence with a dot?
>
> * How do you think about to adjust the repetition of the word “issue”?

How about below changelog?

workqueue: Warn when work flush own workqueue

Flushing itself or own workqueue in work context will
lead to a deadlock.
Catch this incorrect usage and warning when issue happened.

>
>
> …
> > - update comment
> > ---
> >  kernel/workqueue.c | 10 +++++++---
>
> I suggest to replace these triple dashes by a blank line.
Ok
>
>
> …
> > @@ -2585,6 +2585,7 @@ static int rescuer_thread(void *__rescuer)
> >   * @target_work: work item being flushed (NULL for workqueue flushes)
> >   *
> >   * %current is trying to flush the whole @target_wq or @target_work on it.
> > + * If a work flushing own workqueue or itself will lead to a deadlock.
>
> I stumble on understanding challenges for the wording “work flushing”.
> Can an adjustment help in comparison to the term “work item”?

How about below comment?

* If a work item flushing own workqueue or itself will lead to a deadlock.

>
> Regards,
> Markus