On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:23:10 -0400 (EDT), > Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > sysfs_work_struct is too generic; other parts of sysfs might also want to > > use workqueues for different purposes. > > > I don't like calling it "delayed"-anything, because the operations aren't > > necessarily delayed! On an SMP system they might even execute before the > > sysfs_access_in_other_task() call returns. (Although the two examples we > > have so far can't do that because of lock contention.) > > Sure. But then you shouldn't refer to "delay" in the comments for the > functions as well :) > > > The major feature added here is that the work takes place in a different > > task's context, not that it is delayed. Hence the choice of names. > > Hm. Perhaps device_schedule_access()?
It's really none of my business, I'm merely the reporter the deadlock being fixed, and I don't know my way around sysfs at all ... ... but I have to say I share your discomfort with Alan's "sysfs_access_in_other_task" naming, it sounded very weird to me. Quite apart from this mysterious "other task", I don't understand "access" either. Perhaps "defer" would best capture the idea of another-task and maybe-delay? sysfs_defer_work(), struct sysfs_deferred_work? Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/