On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > I finally found some time to finish this off. I don't really like the > end result - the macros looked clearer to me - but here goes. If it > looks okay, I'll seek sign offs from each of the affected driver > maintainers and from Ingo. Anyone else?
What are your feelings about this: http://lwn.net/Articles/145417/ ? It seems like a cleaner way to do things. How would these patches change if that were merged? Concerning the patch specifically: > diff -ruNp 400-workthreads.patch-old/include/linux/kthread.h > 400-workthreads.patch-new/include/linux/kthread.h > --- 400-workthreads.patch-old/include/linux/kthread.h 2004-11-03 > 21:51:12.000000000 +1100 > +++ 400-workthreads.patch-new/include/linux/kthread.h 2005-08-03 > 11:52:01.000000000 +1000 > @@ -23,10 +23,20 @@ > * > * Returns a task_struct or ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM). > */ > +struct task_struct *__kthread_create(int (*threadfn)(void *data), > + void *data, > + unsigned long freezer_flags, > + const char namefmt[], > + va_list * args); > + When comparing this to this: > diff -ruNp 400-workthreads.patch-old/include/linux/workqueue.h > 400-workthreads.patch-new/include/linux/workqueue.h > --- 400-workthreads.patch-old/include/linux/workqueue.h 2005-06-20 > 11:47:30.000000000 +1000 > +++ 400-workthreads.patch-new/include/linux/workqueue.h 2005-08-03 > 11:49:34.000000000 +1000 > @@ -51,9 +51,12 @@ struct work_struct { > } while (0) > > extern struct workqueue_struct *__create_workqueue(const char *name, > - int singlethread); > -#define create_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 0) > -#define create_singlethread_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 1) > + int singlethread, > + unsigned long freezer_flag); > +#define create_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 0, 0) > +#define create_nofreeze_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 0, > PF_NOFREEZE) > +#define create_singlethread_workqueue(name) __create_workqueue((name), 1, 0) > +#define create_nofreeze_singlethread_workqueue(name) > __create_workqueue((name), 1, PF_NOFREEZE) And to this: > static struct task_struct *create_workqueue_thread(struct workqueue_struct > *wq, > - int cpu) > + int cpu, > + unsigned long freezer_flags) > { There is a slight discrepancy in the API changes. Obviously, we don't want to change every caller of create_workqueue() to support this. But, perhaps you could standardize the handling of the freezer flags (by e.g. creating a separate _nofreeze version for each). Also, functions that take a va_list parameter pass the structure (array) rather than the pointer. See the definition of vprintk() in include/linux/kernel.h for an example. Thanks, Pat - 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/
