On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:13:53 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> OK, all wants to keep DEFINE stuff as is: > > DEFINE_KTHREAD_WORKER() stay > DEFINE_KTHREAD_WORK() stay > DEFINE_KTHREAD_WORKER_ONSTACK() stay > DEFINE_KTHREAD_WORKER_ONSTACK() stay > > > Nobody was against renaming the non-init functions: > > insert_kthread_work() -> kthread_insert_work() > queue_kthread_work() -> kthread_queue_work() > flush_kthread_work() -> kthread_flush_work() > flush_kthread_worker() -> kthread_flush_worker() Yep. > > > > Now, the question seem to be the init() functions. > Andrew would prefer: > > __init_kthread_worker() -> __kthread_worker_init() > init_kthread_worker() -> kthread_worker_init() > init_kthread_work() -> kthread_work_init() > > AFAIK, Steven would prefer to keep it > > __init_kthread_worker() stay as is > init_kthread_worker() stay as is > init_kthread_work() stay as is > > I would personally prefer the way from this patch: > > __init_kthread_worker() -> __kthread_init_worker() > init_kthread_worker() -> kthread_init_worker() > init_kthread_work() -> kthread_init_work() > > > I have several reasons: > > 1. The init functions will be used close to the other functions in > the code. It will be easier if all functions use the same > naming scheme. Here are some snippets: > > kthread_init_work(&w_data->balancing_work, clamp_balancing_func); > kthread_init_delayed_work(&w_data->idle_injection_work, > clamp_idle_injection_func); > kthread_queue_work(w_data->worker, &w_data->balancing_work); > > or > > kthread_init_delayed_work(&kmemleak_scan_work, kmemleak_scan_func); > kmemleak_scan_worker = kthread_create_worker(0, "kmemleak"); > > > 2. We are going to add kthread_destroy_worker() which would need > to be another exception. Also this function will be used together > with the others, for example: > > kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync(&rb_producer_hammer_work); > kthread_destroy_worker(rb_producer_worker); > > Also here the same naming scheme will help. > > > 3. It is closer to the workqueues API, so it reduces confusion. Using workqueues as an example of "reduces confusion" is not the most convincing argument ;-) > > 4. Note that there are already several precedents, for example: > > amd_iommu_init_device() > free_area_init_node() > jump_label_init_type() > regmap_init_mmio_clk() > > > Andrew, Steven, are you really so strongly against my version > of the init functions, please? > > I don't really have that strong opinion on the "init" part. I was much more concerned about the DEFINE/DECLARE macros. -- Steve
