On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:08 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having taskqueue_enqueue() which could silently (?) not enqueue the given > task is huge and IMO risky change to the KPI. If doing it, I think > that there should be a new function to enqueue, which is allowed to > fail, unlike taskqueue_enqueue(). > > BTW, the man page for taskqueue(9) is wrong, taskqueue_enqueue(9) > always succeed now and always returns 0 (ignoring the ushort overflow). > That's fair, but I feel that a new enqueue function would be rather intrusive for existing drivers. Maybe we should attach this from a different angle. How about a taskqueue_quiesce() function, which must be called on a blocked taskqueue (by taskqueue_block() ). taskqueue_quiesce() would block until the taskqueue's thread has stopped running. Then I can do: taskqueue_block() taskqueue_quiesce() taskqueue_cancel() //... taskqueue_free() _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
