Re: workqueue_drain

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 05:32:58AM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote:
> I'm not totally convinced here.  It might be useful to wait for a
> particular work to be finished in order to allow it to be enqueued
> again (no work can be enqueued if already in the queue).  But I don't
> see how "remember the last work enqueued and wait for it to be done
> before destroying" is more versatile than "waiting for all to be done
> before destroying".  It certainly seems that the latter is a simpler
> approach.

Given that you have to make the workqueue externally non-accessible
first anyway, the former provides all the functionality of the latter.
If you don't make it unaccessible first, you always have a race
condition.

Joerg