linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 14:04:48 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D99E3C0.5010604@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.44.0210011653370.28821-102000@localhost.localdomain

Ingo,

Looking real good.

I still think that schedule_work() should have void* cookie passed to it 
directly, instead of at INIT_WORK time [and possibly changing it by hand 
in the driver, immediately before schedule_work() is called]

For drivers that pass an interface pointer like struct net_device*, 
INIT_WORK-time, the current scheme is fine, but when the cookie 
fluctuates more, it makes a lot more sense to pass void* to 
schedule_work() itself.

Further, schedule_work(wq,data) is conceptually very close to 
my_work_func(data) and makes the code easier to trace through: it 
becomes more obvious what is the value of the my_work_func arg, at the 
place in the code where schedule_work() is called.  I see passing the 
void* cookie as covering one common case, while adding void* arg to 
schedule_work() would cover all cases...

[IMO the same argument can be applied to the existing timer API as well, 
but timers are less often one-shot in kernel code, so it matter less...]

That said, I don't feel strongly about this, so can be convinced 
otherwise fairly easily :)  I would not complain if Linus applied your 
patch as-is.

	Jeff




  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-10-01 18:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-10-01 16:24 [patch] Workqueue Abstraction, 2.5.40-H7 Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 17:55 ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-10-01 21:27   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 18:04 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2002-10-01 18:52   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 21:06     ` Jeff Garzik
2002-10-01 21:30       ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 19:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 19:53   ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 21:32 ` Kristian Hogsberg
2002-10-03 18:44   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-04 23:20     ` Kristian Hogsberg
2002-10-02  4:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-01 21:31   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-02  8:22 ` Oleg Drokin
2002-10-08  3:50   ` Jeff Dike
2002-10-01 18:52 Marc-Christian Petersen
2002-10-02  3:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-10-01 20:29 Ingo Molnar
2002-10-01 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-10-01 21:21   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-02  3:23     ` Miles Bader
2002-10-02 19:18     ` Randy.Dunlap
2002-10-01 21:09 ` Jes Sorensen
2002-10-01 21:35   ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-03  1:38 ` Kevin O'Connor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3D99E3C0.5010604@pobox.com \
    --to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).