On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 01/23/2017 08:33 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Allow the user to communicate with the tasklet through the atomic state
> > field by assigning a bit for their use. This can be used, for example,
> > to differentiate between a tasklet called following an irq or from
> > process context, where some hardware state may only be valid after the
> > irq.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk>
> > Cc: Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.com>
> > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com>
> > Cc: Chen Fan <chen.fan.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > Cc: Alexander Potapenko <gli...@google.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/interrupt.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > index 53144e78a369..ab321552089b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > @@ -542,7 +542,8 @@ struct tasklet_struct name = { NULL, 0, ATOMIC_INIT(1),
> > func, data }
> > enum
> > {
> > TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, /* Tasklet is scheduled for execution */
> > - TASKLET_STATE_RUN /* Tasklet is running (SMP only) */
> > + TASKLET_STATE_RUN, /* Tasklet is running (SMP only) */
> > + TASKLET_STATE_USER /* Reserved for use by the owner */
> > };
>
> I have no problem making that distinction, but it's impossible to ack
> this patch without having seen how you plan to utilize it, as the patch
> is meaningless on its own.
Right and w/o well defined semantics of this bit it's not at all
acceptable. tasklets have vagely semantics already, we really don't need to
increase that horror.
Thanks,
tglx
