Quoting r. Sean Hefty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: RFC: revert module ref counting patches (was Re: [PATCH] > ipoib_flush_paths) > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >No, its simple: A uses C -> A does flush C at unload. > >B uses C -> B does flush C at unload. > > This is C's problem. We're forcing clients to provide the fix, which just > seems wrong. The issue is that A does flush C, which must wait for B's > callback to complete.
Sean, as a rule, flushing never adds deadlocks unless you keep some locks while flushing. In our example its clear that A has to wait for its callback to run to complete. If B and A callbacks are running on the same WQ, this means A must wait for B's callack to complete if it gets placed in in WQ before A callback. So we are *not* adding an extra dependency. -- MST _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
